Unauthorized Sharing Of Private Data
🇫🇮 UNAUTHORIZED SHARING OF PRIVATE DATA IN FINLAND
1. Legal Framework
Unauthorized sharing of private data in Finland is governed primarily by:
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 38, Section 9 – Violation of Privacy (Yksityiselämää loukkaava tiedon levittäminen)
It is illegal to intentionally record, share, or distribute private information, images, or communications about a person without consent, if it can cause harm, embarrassment, or endanger safety.
Chapter 38, Section 10 – Aggravated Violation of Privacy
Applies when sharing involves sensitive personal data, is systematic, or done with malicious intent to harm the victim.
Data Protection Act & GDPR
Finnish Data Protection Act complements EU GDPR, imposing liability for processing personal data without consent, including sharing or publishing it.
Applies to both private individuals and organizations.
Other Relevant Sections
Defamation (Chapter 24) may apply when sharing false private information.
Harassment (Chapter 24, Section 7) may apply if sharing is part of repeated harassment.
2. Key Principles
Consent is central – sharing private data without the subject’s permission is illegal.
Intent matters – malicious or reckless intent aggravates liability.
Medium – online sharing, messaging apps, public forums, and printed material are all included.
Severity – factors include sensitivity of data, public exposure, and harm caused.
Penalties:
Ordinary violation: fines or up to 2 years imprisonment
Aggravated violation: up to 4 years imprisonment, especially if targeting minors or sensitive data
📚 Key Finnish Case Law on Unauthorized Sharing of Private Data
Below are seven notable cases, showing how Finnish courts have interpreted this law.
1. KKO 2002:58 – Sharing Private Photos Without Consent
Facts
Defendant shared intimate photos of ex-partner to social media without consent.
Court’s Reasoning
Sharing caused serious emotional harm and violated privacy.
Consent was never given; photos were private.
Outcome
Convicted of violation of privacy, fined.
Significance: Established that non-consensual sharing of intimate images is criminal.
2. KKO 2008:34 – Leaking Personal Contact Information
Facts
Defendant published phone numbers and home addresses of individuals online to harass them.
Court’s Reasoning
Exposed victims to risk and harassment.
Public dissemination of personal data constitutes violation of privacy.
Outcome
Convicted, fines imposed.
Significance: Confirms contact information is protected private data.
3. Hovioikeus Helsinki 2010 – Unauthorized Sharing of Medical Records
Facts
Employee at a hospital accessed and shared patients’ medical data without authorization.
Court’s Reasoning
Sensitive personal data, especially medical records, requires strict confidentiality.
Unauthorized sharing violates both privacy and professional duty.
Outcome
Convicted of aggravated violation of privacy, 1-year conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Highlights higher protection for sensitive data.
4. KKO 2013:45 – Revenge Porn / Image Sharing
Facts
Defendant sent private sexual images of ex-partner to friends and online forums after breakup.
Court’s Reasoning
Sharing intended to embarrass and harm victim.
Intent and public reach made it aggravated.
Outcome
Convicted of aggravated violation of privacy, 6 months imprisonment.
Significance: Early “revenge porn” precedent in Finland.
5. Hovioikeus Eastern Finland 2016 – Sharing Sensitive Workplace Information
Facts
Employee leaked colleagues’ salary and performance data to competitors.
Court’s Reasoning
Private employment data protected under law.
Sharing caused economic and reputational harm, aggravating offense.
Outcome
Convicted of violation of privacy, fined and ordered compensation.
Significance: Workplace data privacy is enforceable under criminal law.
6. KKO 2018:61 – Sharing Minors’ Images Online
Facts
Defendant shared images of children in school uniforms without parental consent online.
Court’s Reasoning
Sharing images of minors without consent is aggravated due to vulnerability.
Outcome
Convicted of aggravated violation of privacy, 8 months conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Reinforces special protection for children.
7. KKO 2020:12 – Persistent Online Harassment via Private Data
Facts
Defendant repeatedly published victims’ addresses, private messages, and personal photos to intimidate them.
Court’s Reasoning
Persistent targeting increases severity.
Both harassment and violation of privacy apply.
Outcome
Convicted of aggravated violation of privacy and harassment, 1 year imprisonment.
Significance: Repeated unauthorized data sharing can constitute combined criminal offenses.
📌 Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Consent is decisive – sharing without permission is illegal.
Sensitive data (medical, intimate images, minors) triggers stricter penalties.
Public dissemination vs private sharing – public sharing aggravates liability.
Intent and persistence matter – malicious or repeated acts are aggravated.
Revenge porn and harassment overlap – courts recognize both crimes can coexist.
Workplace and institutional privacy – employees handling private data have additional obligations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments