The geek with a cynical view

Monday, September 30, 2013

Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems 30-2013

I

n the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's first year of service, at least four aircraft suffered from electrical system problems stemming from itslithium-ion batteries. Although teething problems are common within the first year of a new aircraft design's life, after a number of incidents including an electrical fire aboard an All Nippon Airways 787, and a similar fire found by maintenance workers on a landedJapan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered a review into the design and manufacture of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, following five incidents in five days involving the aircraft, mostly involved with problems with the batteries and electrical systems. This was followed with a full grounding of the entire Boeing 787 fleet, the first such grounding since that of DC-10s in 1979.[1] It is reported that the plane has had two major battery thermal runawayevents in 52,000 flight hours, which was substantially below the 10 million flight hours predicted by Boeing, and had done so in a dangerous manner.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Timeline
2 Groundings
3 Solution
4 See also
5 References
Timeline

In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney told media outlets that the problems were no greater than those experienced by the company with the introduction of other new models, such as the Boeing 777.[3] However, on January 7, 2013, a battery overheated and started a fire in an empty 787 operated by Japan Airlines (JAL) at Boston's Logan International Airport.[4][5] On January 9, United Airlinesreported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring in the same area as the battery fire on JAL's airliner; subsequently, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board opened a safety probe.[6]

On January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly of the aircraft. U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".[7] Japan's transport ministry have also launched an investigation in response.[8]

On January 16, 2013, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on Shikoku Island after the flight crew received a computer warning that there was smoke inside one of the electrical compartments.[9][10] ANA said that there was an error message in the cockpit citing a battery malfunction. Passengers and crew were evacuated using the emergency slides.[11]According to The Register, there are no fire-suppression systems in the electrical compartments holding batteries, only smoke detectors.[12]

US-based aviation regulators' oversight into the 2007 safety approval and FAA certification of the 787 has now come under scrutiny, as a key US Senate committee prepares for a hearing into the procedures of aviation safety certification "in coming weeks". However, an FAA spokesperson defended their 2007 safety certification of the 787 by saying, "the whole aviation system is designed so that if the worst case happens, there are systems in place to prevent that from interfering with other systems on the plane".[13]

On February 12, 2013 the Wall Street Journal reported that "Aviation safety investigators are examining whether the formation of microscopic structures known as dendrites inside the Boeing Co. 787's lithium-ion batteries played a role in twin incidents that prompted the fleet to be grounded nearly a month ago."[14]
Groundings

On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.[15][16] The grounding could cost ANA over $1.1 million a day.[17]

Wikinews has related news:FAA orders review of Boeing 787 Dreamliners following week of incidents

On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications are made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.[18] This is the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.[1] The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries [1] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[19] when LiCoO2 batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[20] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.[21][22] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[23][24] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells,[25] but the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[26]

Three All Nippon Airways 787 aircraft grounded at Tokyo on January 27, 2013

On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,[27] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.[28] Despite this, on January 24 the NTSB announced that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.[29] The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (lower than the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop[30] to near zero.[31] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.[32] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.[31] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control [33][34] while the American NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.[35]

Industry experts disagree on consequences of the grounding: Airbus is confident that Boeing will resolve the issue[36] and that no airlines will switch plane type,[37] while other experts see the problem as "costly"[38] and "could take upwards of a year".[39]

The only U.S.-based airline that operates the Dreamliner is United Airlines, which has six.[40] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.[41] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.[42] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.[43] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.[44] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.[45]

As of January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date have been grounded.[45][46][47] On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.[48] On February 4, 2013, the FAA said it will permit Boeing to conduct test flights of 787 aircraft to gather additional data.[49]
Solution

The Federal Aviation Administration decided on April 19, 2013 to allow US Dreamliners return to service after changes were made to their battery systems.[50] Japanese authorities announced they were doing the same for their airplanes. The causes of the battery failures are still unknown.
See also

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Boeing 787 Operational problems 29-13

The Boeing 787 has been involved in multiple aviation incidents and operational problems. In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney stated that the problems were no greater than those experienced with the introduction of other models such as the Boeing 777.^[289]^[290]

Operational problems

A JAL 787 experienced a fuel leak on January 8, 2013, and its flight from Boston was canceled.^[291] On January 9, United Airlines reported a problem in one of its six 787s with the wiring near the main batteries. After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe.^[292] Later, on January 11, 2013, another aircraft was found to have a fuel leak.^[293]

Also on January 11, 2013, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787's critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly; U.S. Department of Transportation secretary Ray LaHood stated the administration was "looking for the root causes" behind the recent issues. The head of the FAA, Michael Huerta, said that so far nothing found "suggests [the 787] is not safe".^[294]

On January 13, 2013, a Japan Airlines 787 at Narita International Airport outside Tokyo, was found to also have a fuel leak during an inspection, the third time a fuel leak had been reported within a week. The aircraft reportedly was the same one that had a fuel leak in Boston on January 8.^[295] This leak was caused by a different valve; the causes of the leaks are unknown.^[296] Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation.^[297]

On July 12, 2013, a fire started on an empty Ethiopian Airlines 787 parked at Heathrow Airport before it was put out by the airport fire and rescue service. No injuries were reported.^[298]^[299] The fire caused extensive heat damage to the aircraft.^[300] The FAA and NTSB sent representatives to assist in the investigation.^[301] The initial investigation found no direct link with the aircraft's main batteries.^[302] Further investigations indicated that the fire was due to lithium-manganese dioxide batteries powering an emergency locator transmitter (ELT).^[303]^[304] The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) issued a special bulletin on July 18, 2013 requesting the US FAA ensure that the locator is removed or disconnected in Boeing 787s, and to review the safety of lithium battery-powered ELT systems in other aircraft types.^[305]

On July 26, 2013, ANA said it had found wiring damage on two 787 locator beacons. United Airlines also reported that it had found a pinched wire in one 787 locator beacon.^[306] On August 14, 2013, the media reported a fire extinguisher fault affecting three ANA airplanes,^[307] which was caused by a supplier assembly error.^[308]

On September 28, 2013, Norwegian Long Haul decided to take one of its present two 787s out of service after the two aircraft broke down on more than six occasions in September.^[309] The company will lease an Airbus A340 for its long-haul operations while the 787 is returned to Boeing for repair.^[310]

Battery problems

Main article: Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems

The Aft Electronics Bay that held the JAL 787 battery that caught fire

Japan Airlines 787 battery comparison; Left: typical original battery. Right: damaged battery.

On January 16, 2013, All Nippon Airways Flight NH-692, en route from Ube to Tokyo Haneda, had a battery problem warning followed by a burning smell while climbing from Ube about 35 nautical miles west of Takamatsu, Japan. The aircraft diverted to Takamatsu and was evacuated via the slides; three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation. Inspection revealed a battery fire. A similar incident in a parked Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan International Airport within the same week led the Federal Aviation Administration to ground all Boeing 787s in service at the time.^[311]

On January 16, 2013, both major Japanese airlines ANA and JAL announced that they were voluntarily grounding or suspending flights for their fleets of 787s after multiple incidents involving different 787s, including emergency landings. These two carriers operate 24 of the 50 Dreamliners delivered to date.^[312]^[313] The grounding is reported to have cost ANA some 9 billion yen in lost sales.^[314]^[315]

On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all U.S.-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications were made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.^[316] This was the first time that the FAA has grounded an airliner type since 1979.^[317] Industry experts disagreed on consequences of the grounding: Airbus was confident that Boeing would resolve the issue^[318] and that no airlines will switch plane type,^[319] while other experts saw the problem as "costly"^[320] and "could take upwards of a year".^[321]

The FAA also announced plans to conduct an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review will be on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries^[317] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCo). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,^[193] when LiCo batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer^[322] types (such as LiFePO), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.^[191]^[323] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".^[324]^[325] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells;^[326] the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.^[189]

On January 20, the NTSB declared that overvoltage was not the cause of the Boston incident, as voltage did not exceed the battery limit of 32 V,^[327] and the charging unit passed tests. The battery had signs of short circuiting and thermal runaway.^[328] Despite this, the NTSB announced on January 24 that it had not yet pinpointed the cause of the Boston fire; the FAA will not allow U.S.-based Dreamliners to fly again until the problem is found and corrected. In a press briefing that day, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said that the NTSB had found evidence of failure of multiple safety systems designed to prevent these battery problems, and stated that fire must never happen on an airplane.^[329]

The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) has said on January 23 that the battery in ANA jets in Japan reached a maximum voltage of 31 V (below the 32 V limit like the Boston JAL 787), but had a sudden unexplained voltage drop^[330] to near zero.^[331] All cells had signs of thermal damage before thermal runaway.^[332] ANA and JAL had replaced several 787 batteries before the mishaps.^[331] As of January 29, 2013, JTSB approved the Yuasa factory quality control^[333]^[334] while the NTSB continues to look for defects in the Boston battery.^[335] The two major battery thermal runaway events in 100,000 flight hours was much higher than the rate of one in 10 million flight hours that Boeing predicted.^[311]

The only U.S.-based airline that operated the Dreamliner at the time was United Airlines, which had six.^[336] Chile's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) grounded LAN Airlines' three 787s.^[337] The Indian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to ground its six Dreamliners. The Japanese Transport Ministry made the ANA and JAL groundings official and indefinite following the FAA announcement.^[11] The European Aviation Safety Agency has also followed the FAA's advice and grounded the only two European 787s operated by LOT Polish Airlines.^[338] Qatar Airways has announced that they are grounding their five Dreamliners.^[339] Ethiopian Air was the final operator to announce temporary groundings of its four Dreamliners.^[340] By January 17, 2013, all 50 of the aircraft delivered to date had been grounded.^[340]^[341]^[342]

On January 18, Boeing announced that it was halting 787 deliveries until the battery problem is resolved.^[343] On February 7, 2013, the FAA gave approval for Boeing to conduct 787 test flights to gather additional data.^[344]^[345] In February 2013, FAA oversight into the 2007 safety approval and certification of the 787 have come under scrutiny.^[346]

On March 7, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board released an interim factual report about the 787 battery fire at Boston's Logan Airport on January 7, 2013. The investigation^[347] stated that "heavy smoke and fire coming from the front of the APU battery case". Firefighters "tried fire extinguishing, but smoke and flame (flame size about 3 inches) did not stop".^[348]^[349]

Boeing completed its final tests on a revised battery design on April 5, 2013. Qatar Airways said it expected to have its Dreamliners back in revenue service by the end of April.^[350] The FAA approved Boeing's revised battery design with three additional, overlapping protection methods on April 19, 2013. The FAA published a directive on April 25 to provide instructions for retrofitting battery hardware before the 787s can return to flight.^[351]^[352] The repairs are expected to be completed in weeks.^[353]

Following the FAA approval in the United States,^[354] Japan gave permission for passenger airlines to resume Boeing 787 flights in the country effective April 26, 2013.^[355] On April 27, 2013, Ethiopian Airlines took a 787 on the model's first commercial flight after battery system modifications.^[352]^[354]^[356]

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Commissioner of Canada Elections Announces the Laying of Canada Elections : Act Charges Dean Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy are charged

Commissioner of Canada Elections Announcesthe Laying of Canada Elections Act Charges

OTTAWA, September 26, 2013

Pursuant to a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Yves Côté, has announced his office has laid four charges under the Canada Elections Act, a federal statute.
The charges were filed on September 26, 2013 in the Ontario Court of Justice in Peterborough.
Dean Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy are charged with:
- incurring election expenses in an amount more than the election expenses limit, contrary to subsection 443(1) of the Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(p) and 500(5) of the Act;
- providing the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing provided a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Act that each knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a material statement that was false or misleading, contrary to paragraph 463(1)(a) of the Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Act;
- providing to the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing knowingly provided a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Act that did not substantially set out the information required by subsection 451(2), contrary to paragraph 463(1)(b) of the Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Act.
Dean Del Mastro is also charged with:
- wilfully exceeding the contribution limit for a candidate in his own election campaign, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(f.13) and 500(5) of the Act.
The Commissioner of Canada Elections is responsible for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act and Referendum Actare complied with and enforced. The Chief Electoral Officer appoints the Commissioner under theCanada Elections Act.

"In our electoral system, it is fundamentally important that the spending and contribution limits enacted by Parliament be respected. It is also essential that the reports and information provided to Elections Canada be accurate and truthful," said Mr. Côté. "The level-playing field principle and the requirement for transparency call for nothing less. We will continue to be vigilant to ensure that these rules are observed."

Charge no. 1

That Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, and Richard McCarthy, being the official agent of candidate Dean Del Mastro in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, did wilfully, between September 14, 2008 and October 14, 2008, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, incur election expenses in an amount that was more than the election expenses limit of $92,655.79 calculated under section 440 of the Canada Elections Act for the electoral district of Peterborough in that election, contrary to subsection 443(1) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(p) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended;

Charge no. 2

And further, that Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, between September 14, 2008 and October 14, 2008, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did pay an election expense of $21,000.00 out of his own funds, thereby making a contribution and, in so doing, wilfully exceeded the contribution limit of $2,100.00 for a candidate in his own election campaign as calculated under subsections 405(1), 405(4)(a) and section 405.1 of the Canada Elections Act, contrary to subsection 405(1) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary subsections 497(3)(f.13) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended;

Charge no. 3

And further, that Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, and Richard McCarthy, being the official agent of candidate Dean Del Mastro in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, did, between February 9, 2009 and February 13, 2009, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, provide to the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00 from Dean Del Mastro to his campaign, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing did provide to the Chief Electoral Officer a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Canada Elections Act that each of them knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a material statement that was false or misleading, contrary to paragraph463(1)(a) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended;

Charge no. 4

And further, that Dean Del Mastro, being a candidate in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, and Richard McCarthy, being the official agent of candidate Dean Del Mastro in the 40th federal general election in the electoral district of Peterborough, did, between February 9, 2009 and February 13, 2009, at or near the City of Peterborough, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, provide to the Chief Electoral Officer an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution of $21,000.00 from Dean Del Mastro to his campaign, omitted to report an election expense of $21,000.00 and instead reported an election expense of $1,575.00, and in so doing did knowingly provide to the Chief Electoral Officer a document referred to in subsection 451(1) of the Canada Elections Act that did not substantially set out the information required by subsection 451(2), contrary to paragraph 463(1)(b) of the said Act; thereby committing an offence contrary to subsections 497(3)(v) and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, as amended.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Researchers from the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital of the McGill University Health Centre (The Neuro), McGill University and Université de Montréal have published a study showing that memory pathology in older mice with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) can be reversed with treatment. The researchers discovered

Researchers from the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital of the McGill University Health Centre (The Neuro), McGill University and Université de Montréal have published a study showing that memory pathology in older mice with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) can be reversed with treatment. The researchers discovered that blocking the activity of a specific receptor in the brain of mice with advanced AD recovers memory and cerebrovascular function. The results, published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, also suggest an underlying mechanism of AD as a potential target for new therapies.

“The exciting and important aspect of this study is that even animals with advanced pathology can be rescued with this molecule,” says Dr. Edith Hamel, neuroscientist at The Neuro and lead investigator on the paper in collaboration with Dr. Réjean Couture in the Department of Physiology at Université de Montréal. “We have rarely seen this type of reversal of AD symptoms before in our mouse model at this advanced age – when mice have been developing AD for one year.”

The researchers found an increased level of a receptor known as bradykinin B1 receptor (B1R) in the brain of mice with AD, a receptor involved in inflammation. “By administering a molecule that selectively blocks the action of this receptor, we observed important improvements in both cognitive and cerebrovascular function,” says Dr. Baptiste Lacoste, research fellow at The Neuro during the period of the study. “Alzheimer’s disease destroys nerve cells and also compromises the function of blood vessels in the brain. Not only were there improvements in learning and memory, but also marked recovery in blood flow and vascular reactivity, meaning the ability of cerebral vessels to dilate or constrict when necessary.”

Proper functioning of blood vessels in the brain is vital to providing nutrients and oxygen to nerve cells, and vascular diseases represent important risk factors for developing AD at an advanced age.

“Another interesting result that has not been seen before in our mouse model is a reduction by over 50 per cent of toxic amyloid-beta peptide,” adds Dr. Hamel. “In Alzheimer’s disease, protein fragments called amyloid-beta have a deleterious effect on the blood and nervous systems. Normally, these protein fragments are broken down and removed. In Alzheimer’s disease, the protein fragments clump together — a factor believed to contribute to neuronal and vascular dysfunction. We are not sure if these decreases contribute to the functional recovery, but we hope that our findings will aid in clarifying this issue and identifying new targets for therapeutic approaches.”

The results show that an increase in B1R is associated with amyloid-beta plaques in Alzheimer’s disease mice with impaired memory, and that chronic blockade of B1R significantly improves learning, memory, cerebrovascular function, and several other pathological AD hallmarks in mice with a fully developed pathology. Together, these findings confirm a role of B1R in AD pathogenesis and the role of neuroinflammation as an underlying mechanism in AD. The next step would be to further investigate potential blockers of the bradykinin B1R as a potential treatment for AD in humans.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Alzheimer Society of Canada, and can be found at www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/10/1/57/abstract.

Monday, September 23, 2013

School must stop using the cloud service : A school in Sollentuna

School must stop using the cloud service

September 17, 2013

A school in Sollentuna using cloud service, Google Apps for Education must either sign an agreement with Google, which comply with the Personal Data Act, or stop using the cloud service.

Data Inspection Board has reviewed Rudbecksskolan in Sollentuna using cloud service Google Apps for Education in their business. All teachers and students have to open an account with Google to get access to the tools needed for schoolwork.

The Authority notes that the school has not taken a specific so-called personal data assistant contracts with cloud service provider Google. The agreement has no particular instructions and limitations on the cloud service provider to handle the personal data occurs. The agreement also lacks data on safety Google is obliged to take to protect personal data being handled.

Data Inspectorate submits therefore that the school either as soon sign a personal data assistant contracts that meet the rules of the Data Protection Act, or stop using the cloud service.

- In the right school environment where such privacy-sensitive personal data relating to children and young people may be, it is especially important that those responsible really makes sure that personal data are handled in a legal manner, says Ingela Alverfors who led the review.

Read Data Services Authority in pdf format

Continued against the municipality to use cloud services

Continued against the municipality to use cloud services

June 10, 2013

The contract Salem municipality would subscribe to use Google's cloud service is not enough, says Information Commissioner.Either the shortcomings of the agreement addressed or municipality must stop using the cloud service.

2011 criticized the Data Inspection Salem municipality for its use of a cloud service from Google. The criticism concerned the lack of agreement meant that it did not comply with the rules of the Data Protection Act. The agreement gave Google too much space to process personal data for their own purposes. Moreover, did not the subcontractors who are involved and what happens to personal data when the contract ends.

Salem Municipality was requested to draw up a new agreement. Data Inspection Board has reviewed the new agreement, noting that the previous shortcomings persist.

- Therefore, we must once again submit to the municipality to either remedy the shortcomings of the agreement or to stop using the cloud service, says Ingela Alverfors, lawyer at the Swedish Data Inspection Board.

Read Data Services Authority in pdf format

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Sweden's Data Inspection Board (Datainspektionen) has told a Stockholmschool that they must either desist from using a Google cloud service

Sweden's Data Inspection Board (Datainspektionen) has told a Stockholmschool that they must either desist from using a Google cloud service or sign an agreement with the US firm which complies with the Personal Data Act.

It is especially important in a school environment, where there is sensitive private personal data relating to children and young people, that those responsible really make sure that personal data is handled in a legal manner," said Ingela Alverfors at the Data Inspection Board in a statement.
The school in question is the Rudbeck school in Sollentuna in northern Stockholm which uses the Google Apps for Education service which requires all teachers and pupils to open a Google account.

The Data Inspection Board has established that the school lacks an agreement with the US firm to cover the protection and management of personal information. The agreement would cover instructions and stipulate limits for handling data.

The school has therefore been instructed to establish such an agreement with Google in order to ensure the privacy and integrity of the students in its care. If the school declines to do so then they have been told to stop using the service.