The purpose of this research was to develop an accurate description of the current involvement of law enforcement in schools. The researchers administered a school survey (Part 1) as well as a law enforcement survey (Part 2 and Part 3). The school survey was designed specifically for this research, but did incorporate items from previous surveys, particularly the School Survey on Crime and Safety and the National Assessment of School Resource Officer Programs Survey of School Principals. The school surveys were then sent out to a total of 3,156 school principals between January 2002 and May 2002. The researchers followed Dillman's mail survey design and received a total of 1,387 completed surveys. Surveys sent to the schools requested that each school identify their primary and secondary law enforcement providers. Surveys were then sent to those identified primary law enforcement agencies (Part 2) and secondary law enforcement agencies (Part 3) in August 2002. Part 2 and Part 3 each contain 3,156 cases which matches the original sample size of schools. For Part 2 and Part 3, a total of 1,508 law enforcement surveys were sent to both primary and secondary law enforcement agencies. The researchers received 1,060 completed surveys from the primary law enforcement agencies (Part 2) and 86 completed surveys from the secondary law enforcement agencies (Part 3). Part 1, School Survey Data, included a total of 309 variables pertaining to school characteristics, type of law enforcement relied on by the schools, school resource officers, frequency of public law enforcement activities, teaching activities of law enforcement officers, frequency of private security activities, safety plans and meetings with law enforcement, and crime/disorder in schools. Part 2, Primarily Relied Upon Law Enforcement Agency Survey Data, and Part 3, Secondarily Relied Upon Law Enforcement Agency Survey Data, each contain 161 variables relating to school resource officers, frequency of public law enforcement activities, teaching activities of law enforcement agencies, safety plans and meetings with schools, and crime/disorder in schools reported to police according to primary/secondary law enforcement.

DP (Data Protection Act) / SAR (Subject Access Request) - % In time - (YTD).

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) was intended to promote a culture of openness and accountability by giving people the right to access information held by public authorities; to improve public understanding of duties, why decisions are made and how public money is spent.

A Subject Access Request (SAR) is a written request that entitles individuals to find out what personal data is held about them by an organisation, why the organisation is holding it and who their information is disclosed to by that organisation.

This dataset is about book subjects and is filtered where the books is Regulating online behavioural advertising through data protection law, featuring 10 columns including authors, average publication date, book publishers, book subject, and books. The preview is ordered by number of books (descending).

DP (Data Protection Act) / SAR (Subject Access Request) - % Out of time - (YTD)

This is a current list of approved security guard schools. The Security Guard Act of 1992 requires registration and training of security guards in New York State. The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) approves the private security training schools and provides administrative oversight for mandated security training.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The National Pupil Database (NPD) is one of the richest education datasets in the world. It is a longitudinal database which links pupil characteristics to information about attainment for those who attend schools and colleges in England. There are a range of data sources in the NPD providing detailed information about children's education at different stages (pre-school, primary and secondary education and further education). Pupil level information was first collected in January 2002 as part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). The School Census replaced the PLASC in 2006 for secondary schools and in 2007 for nursery, primary and special schools. The School Census is carried out three times a year in the spring, summer and autumn terms (January, May and October respectively) and provides the Department for Education with both pupil and school-level data. The NPD is available through the UK Data Archive in three tiers. Tiers two and three are the most sensitive and must be accessed via the Archive's safe room, whereas tier four can be accessed remotely through the Archive's Secure Lab. Tier two contains individual pupil level data which is identifiable and sensitive. Individual pupil level extracts include sensitive information about pupils and their characteristics, including items described as 'sensitive personal data' within the UK Data Protection Act 1998 which have been recoded to become less sensitive. Examples of sensitive data items include ethnic group major, ethnic group minor, language group major, language group minor, Special Educational Needs and eligibility for Free School Meals. Tier three represents aggregated school level data which is identifiable and sensitive. Included are aggregated extracts of school level data from the Department of Education's School Level Database which include items described as 'sensitive personal data' within the Data Protection Act 1998 and could include small numbers and single counts. For example, there is 1 white boy eligible for Free School Meals in school x who did not achieve level 4 in English and maths at Key Stage 2. Tier four represents less sensitive data than tiers two and three. Included are individual pupil level extracts that do not contain information about pupils and their characteristics which are considered to be identifying or described as sensitive personal data within the Data Protection Act 1998. For example, the extracts may include information about pupil attainment, prior attainment, progression and pupil absences but do not include any identifying data items like names and addresses and any information about pupil characteristics other than gender. Extracts from the NPD are also available directly from the Department of Education through GOV.UK's National pupil database: apply for a data extract web page. The fourth edition (September 2017) includes a data file and documentation for the year 2016.

Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to prepare a Charter Statement for every government bill to help inform public and Parliamentary debate on government bills. One of the Minister of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to examine legislation for inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“the Charter”]. By tabling a Charter Statement, the Minister is sharing some of the key considerations that informed the review of a bill for inconsistency with the Charter. A Statement identifies Charter rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by a bill and provides a brief explanation of the nature of any engagement, in light of the measures being proposed. A Charter Statement also identifies potential justifications for any limits a bill may impose on Charter rights and freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter provides that rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This means that Parliament may enact laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms. The Charter will be violated only where a limit is not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. A Charter Statement is intended to provide legal information to the public and Parliament on a bill’s potential effects on rights and freedoms that are neither trivial nor too speculative. It is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of all conceivable Charter considerations. Additional considerations relevant to the constitutionality of a bill may also arise in the course of Parliamentary study and amendment of a bill. A Statement is not a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a bill.

This data is a statewide compilation of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Study Regions. As part of a comprehensive effort to sustain marine habitats and fisheries, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) of 1999 directed the State to redesign California’s system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to function as a network. To facilitate planning, the MLPA Initiative, a public-private partnership, was formed and the state was divided into five planning regions (four coastal and the San Francisco Bay), each with its own MPA planning process. All four coastal regions have now completed their individual planning processes, leading to the statewide implementation of California's MPA network along the coast. Options for a planning process in the fifth and final region, the San Francisco Bay, have been developed for consideration at a future date. Twenty MPAs and six special closures were implemented in the north coast region, from the California/Oregon border to Alder Creek (near Point Arena), on December 19, 2012. Twenty-five MPAs and six special closures were implemented in the north central coast region, from Alder Creek (near Point Arena) to Pigeon Point, on May 1, 2010. Twenty-nine MPAs were implemented in the central coast region, from Pigeon Point to Point Conception, on September 21, 2007. Fifty MPAs and two special closures were implemented in the south coast region, from Point Conception to the California-Mexico border, on January 1, 2012. The shoreline provided in this feature is a general approximation of the mean high tide line at the time of implementation. However, it is important to note that it is not based on any elevation (tidal) data and was hand drawn based on best available aerial imagery at the time. Due to the dynamic nature of coastal environments, these boundaries may not accurately reflect the current condition or exact demarcations of the coastline. The offshore boundary is based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) three nautical mile maritime limit published on charts at that time.

1. Provide reference for compliance with relevant personal information laws and regulations when carrying out business in Nanzih Park.2. The purpose of collecting this data: In accordance with the Personal Information Protection Act, its implementation regulations, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs' operation guidelines for personal data protection management, based on business needs and attributes, personal data is maintained securely and personal data security audits are strengthened to comply with relevant regulations of the Personal Information Protection Act.3. Method of collecting this data: Invite various units to submit proposals.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the new European data protection law whose compliance affects organisations in several aspects related to the use of consent and personal data. With emerging research and innovation in data management solutions claiming assistance with various provisions of the GDPR, the task of comparing the degree and scope of such solutions is a challenge without a way to consolidate them. With GDPR as a linked data resource, it is possible to link together information and approaches addressing specific articles and thereby compare them. Organisations can take advantage of this by linking queries and results directly to the relevant text, thereby making it possible to record and measure their solutions for compliance towards specific obligations. GDPR text extensions (GDPRtEXT) uses the European Legislation Identifier (ELI) ontology published by the European Publications Office for exposing the GDPR as linked data. The dataset is published using DCAT and includes an online webpage with HTML id attributes for each article and its subpoints. A SKOS vocabulary is provided that links concepts with the relevant text in GDPR.

Dataset linked to the article: Investigating the Implementation of Data Protection Laws in Game Companies in Brazil

Claimant Private Relief Legislative Files-VA

General Counsel Legal Automation Workload System (GCLAWS)-VA

Enabling Act of Chuuk EPA

DP (Data Protection Act) / SAR (Subject Access Request) - Out of time

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act, Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, Section 101(1), requires each federal agency to provide written notification of the rights and protections available to federal employees, former federal employees and applicants for federal employment under federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower laws listed in the No FEAR Act. The No FEAR Act increases the accountability of federal departments and agencies for acts of discrimination or reprisal against employees.rnrnThe No FEAR Act requires that federal agencies be accountable for violations of anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws. To comply with Title III of the No FEAR Act, FEMA must, among other requirements, post a summary of the statistical data relating to the Equal Employment Opportunity complaints filed with the agency. This data is updated on this website quarterly.rnrnFor further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR Part 724, as well as the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Additional information regarding federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found at www.eeoc.gov and www.osc.gov.

Environmental Quality Protection Act

This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose claimant personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the claimant. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Breach of Patient confidentiality Please note that the identification of claimants is also a breach of the common law duty of confidence. A claimant who has been identified could make a claim against the NHSBSA or yourself for the disclosure of the confidential information. The information requested is therefore being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 41(1) ‘Information provided in confidence’ of the Freedom of Information Act. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/41

The global database security software market is estimated to be valued at XXX million in 2025, and is projected to reach USD XXX million by 2033, exhibiting a CAGR of XX% during the forecast period. The market growth is primarily attributed to the increasing adoption of cloud services, which require robust security measures to protect sensitive data. Cloud-based services often contain valuable customer information, financial data, and other confidential information that is vulnerable to cyberattacks. Database security software plays a vital role in safeguarding this data, ensuring compliance with regulations, and reducing the risk of data breaches and security incidents. Key trends in the market include the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in database security solutions. These technologies enable database security software to detect and respond to threats in real time, automate security processes, and improve overall security posture. Additionally, the growing popularity of data analytics and the increasing volume of data generated are driving the need for effective database security solutions. Regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) are also contributing to the market growth as organizations strive to comply with data protection and privacy mandates. The database security software market is rapidly expanding, driven by the increasing sophistication of cyberattacks and the growing adoption of cloud-based databases. In 2023, the market is estimated to be worth over $1 billion, and is projected to grow to over $2 billion by 2028.

Data on the protected properties of the individual municipalities according to the North Rhine-Westphalian Monument Protection Act. Data is regularly updated and is still under construction.