law

In 1832 Britain realized that it didn’t have much sun. Since then, a law requires that houses have good light

by

If there is something that the United Kingdom could blame for its geography and climate, it is the gray days. Rare is the moment when the sun is not covered by clouds in Mary Poppins’ country, where natural light has become a scarce commodity to fight for. So much so, that there is a “right to light” by which homeowners can legally prevent new construction that obstructs natural light rays into their homes. This law is actually an easement established in 1832 by which the owner of a building with windows that have received natural light for more than 20 years has the right to prohibit adjacent constructions that limit it. That is, historically, a person was entitled to this if natural light and air had passed freely through their windows during that time and been enjoyed without disturbance. And these homes protected by the ordinance were marked with the “Ancient Lights” sign. Therefore, if a neighbor tried to violate this by building a structure or planting trees, the owner had the power to sue him for the “nuisance”. Of course, it is important to note that these do not only affect direct sunlight. But it gives the right to a minimum level of natural lighting, not direct rays of the sun. Although this urban planning law has undergone quite a few changes since its inception, the power of property owners to demand natural light continues to be debated in British cities. Nowadays, These “Ancient Lights” signs are still found on buildings around London and other counties such as Dorset and Kent. And the law, more than 100 years later, continues to be the protagonist of all types of litigation, becoming a headache for judges, lawyers and construction companies. The idea of ​​”having the right to light” Let’s go into more detail. A question that arises from this concept is: how much natural light does a person have the right to? And that is precisely where this law has several legal loopholes. Because a building owner’s windows don’t even have to be completely blocked by a neighboring obstruction for that right to be invoked. You simply have to maintain the same level of lighting that the owner has experienced for twenty years, something that is quite diffuse. In the 1920s, Percy Waldram, an expert in this law, proposed a system to standardize the sufficient amount of light that people could claim. He suggested that “common people” required at least one foot-candle (a measure of light intensity) for reading and other work. If the builder, including a homeowner planning an extension, identifies a risk affecting light rights, they must notify the affected homeowner and engage with them to reach an amicable agreement. This could be as compensation or a redesign to rectify or mitigate the problem. However, if there is a dispute, There are two ways to take legal action: damages and/or a court order. The first consists of granting a sum of money to compensate for the loss. The second may require demolition of part or all of the new building unless some other structural change can remedy the problem. The latter is usually too expensive. The idea for many years was that if a property owner did not take immediate steps to obtain a court order, the only remedy available to them was damages. However, a 2010 case left builders stunnedas the court held that it was possible to obtain an injunction even after the completion of the new building. In another more recent case from 2020the court granted an injunction to a property owner two years after the completion of the infringing work. The court found that the builder had proceeded with full knowledge of the risk he was taking. Is there a similar law in Spain? The easements They also exist in Spain. It is the right that the owner of a property has over the adjoining property that limits the proprietary powers of the owner thereof. In fact, it is not so uncommon to find cases in our country (especially in individual homes), in which Your neighbor has one or more windows that face directly onto your property. Is it legal? As regulated by the Civil Code in article 580no party wall can, without the consent of the other, open any window or opening in a party wall. Otherwise, the owner of a wall that is not a party wall and that is adjacent to the back of another owner may open windows or openings in the same wall. to receive lightsas long as it complies with the premises established in article 581 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, as stipulated in the article 582 of the Civil Code: “You cannot open windows with straight views, nor balconies or other similar overhangs, over the neighbor’s property, if there is not two meters of distance between the wall on which they are built and said property. Nor can you have side or oblique views over the same property, if there is not 60 cm of distance.” In Xataka | If your renovation is a pain, think about the house that cost 120 times more than its original cost: a masterpiece In Xataka | If the question is whether they forgot the elevator shaft in the tallest residential skyscraper in Spain, the answer is simple: it was much worse Image | Chris Flexen

International law was written with humans who decide in mind. AI just broke that chain and no one knows who answers now

by

Pete Hegseth’s threat to Dario Amodei has a subtext that goes far beyond the $200 million contract that the Pentagon can cancel: If the US military deploys AI-controlled autonomous weapons without the safeguards that Anthropic requiresyou will have removed the only firewall that has historically prevented an illegal order from being executed. Why is it importantand. The entire legal and ethical system of the US military rests on a principle that seems obvious but has important consequences: a soldier can and should disobey a manifestly illegal order. It is the mechanism that, in theory, prevents war crimes. A drone AI-controlled autonomous vehicle does not have that mechanism. You can’t refuse. You can’t hesitate. He cannot be tried in a court-martial. Between the lines. Amodei speaks of “autonomous weapons that fire without human intervention” to point out a legal vacuum. If an AI makes the decision to kill, who is responsible criminally? The programmer? The general who activated the system? The president who signed the order? International humanitarian law (including the Geneva Conventions) was written with human beings making decisions in mind. And now AI dissolves that chain of responsibility. The backdrop. The mass surveillance argument is also a bitter pill to swallow. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects citizens from warrantless searches and interventions. It works, among other reasons, because the State has never had the physical capacity to process everything that happens in public spaces. And in the same way, with AI that operational limit disappears: we move to millions of conversations recorded in real time, transcribed, classified and connected in just seconds. What was previously impossible due to lack of human resources becomes routine with a LLM. Constitutional protection until now has depended, in part, on the inefficiency of the State, its limitations. Yes, but. The Pentagon has an argument that cannot be ruled out: other democracies are also developing these capabilities, and China or Russia are not going to wait for the United States to resolve their ethical dilemmas. The practical question is whether having those unrestricted capabilities makes you safer or simply more dangerous to your own citizens. The big question. OpenAI and Google have accepted the Pentagon’s conditions“all legal uses” without specific exceptions, and xAI has just been cleared to operate on classified systems. Anthropic has been left alone in its position. And what is at stake now is not whether Claude survives as a military supplier or not, it is whether the AI ​​industry is going to set some limit on what it sells to the State, or whether that debate will be settled directly by Congress, the courts or, in the worst case, the first serious incident that no one could have foreseen. It seems like a matter of time. In Xataka | AI is already a battlefield: Anthropic has just accused DeepSeek and other Chinese companies of “distilling” Claude Featured image | Xataka

Mexico has built a true Latin dubbing empire. And now it’s going to protect you from AI by law

by

Mexico produces 65% of the dubbing in Latin America. And until now, no rule prevented an AI from copying the voice of its actors without paying or asking for permission. The government of Claudia Sheinbaum has presented this past February 13, 2026, an initiative to legally recognize the human voice as an artistic tool that cannot be cloned. If it prospers in CongressMexico would become something more than a government that looks after the interests of the actors: it would also be a world pioneer in regulation of voice cloning in a cultural setting. Korea is to blame. The trigger for this reaction was not a native series, but some korean dramas. In May 2024, social media users shared fragments of Korean Prime Video series (‘My Boy is Cupid’, ‘The Beat of My Heart’ and ‘Field to Love’) denouncing an unusual feature: the dubbing into Latin Spanish sounded mechanical, robotic and without nuances. And there was also something very suspicious: there were no credits for voice actors anywhere. Without giving explanations, Amazon removed those dubbed versions and did not confirm the origin of the voices. The straw that broke the camel’s back. It was a turning point: the voice actors guild had been denouncing for months how voice actors from all over the continent were losing jobs in favor of AI tools trained, in addition, with their own voices. Some actors, in fact, denounced the Kafkaesque situation that his voice was the one who had replaced him on a YouTube channel for which he worked. Point of no return. In March 2025, Prime Video announced its AI dubbing pilot program in English and Latin Spanish. According to Amazonare twelve series that would not have been dubbed if it had not been for AI, presenting it as an opportunity for series to be seen that would otherwise remain unpublished. The suspicion of Latin professionals, as we have seen, went in a diametrically opposite direction. To calm things down, Amazon assured that localization professionals would monitor and correct the dubbed episodes with AI. The protest. Mexico produces around 65% of the Latin Spanish dubbing destined for Latin America, according to data from the Mexican Association of Commercial Broadcasters (AMELOC), and has some thirty-five active studios with approximately 1,500 actors working. This human force was manifested last July in Mexico under the slogan “AI does not replace.” Among other requests, it was demanded that the voice be recognized as biometric data, at the level of a fingerprint. The purpose is to prevent its use without consent. The proposal. According to the specialized media CO/AISince the summer of 2025, the National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR) and the Legal Department of the Presidency have worked with more than 128 organizations to build a legal framework always in touch with the union. The resulting text reforms two existing laws: the Federal Labor Law incorporates dubbing actors and announcers as formal workers in the cultural sector, equating them to singers; and the Federal Copyright Law recognizes the human voice as a “unique and unrepeatable” artistic tool That is, any use of it through AI requires express authorization from the owner, plus financial compensation. None of this prohibits dubbing with AI, it only protects the voices that train or replicate the model with mandatory contracts. Missing. The initiative must pass the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate before becoming law, and it will take a while: the Mexican Congress accumulates proposals since 2020. There are more than sixty initiatives related to AI that have not yet received the corresponding legal response. Of course, this one seems to go faster: in November 2025, the Congress of Mexico City had already approved a similar opinionwhich reformed five federal laws. Mexico, spearhead. This beginning of regulation in Mexico is an advance of what other countries are trying to regulate since 2023. For example, in 2024 in Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee signed the ELVIS Act to explicitly add voice among the attributes protected against unauthorized use with AI, something new in the US. The standard also holds responsible platforms that distribute tools whose main purpose is to generate voice replicas without authorization. California and New York have tried to regulate not the technology, but the contracts signed around these activities. However, the limitations of these laws were soon demonstrated: in July last year, a New York judge did not rule in favor of two voice actors who discovered that their voices had been marketed as AI products. As it had not been made with a fixed recording, but with attributes such as tone, timbre or cadence, the court dismissed the claims. That ruling is the type of thing that the new Mexican legislation will try to avoid, and provide more robust protection to artists. Header | Amin Asbaghipour in Unsplash

The community has made it clear that they do not want AI in Windows and Microsoft has ignored them. So they have taken the law into their own hands

by

Microsoft’s obsession with putting AI in every corner of Windows is logical at the current time (after all, it’s what everyone is doing). The problem is that the community has been very clear about this: they don’t want to. Microsoft has continued with its plan flood Windows 11 with AIbut we already have a way to avoid it. Winslop. The name comes from the play on words between Windows and Slop, which is the term used to refer to ‘AI garbage’, that is, very poor quality content. This is a free tool whose purpose is to eliminate all traces of AI from the system. Its creator makes it clear that he is not anti-Windows, in fact he states that he likes the platform, what he doesn’t like is the direction it is taking. CleanIA Windows. Winslop is totally free and you can download it from Github. The interface looks like old versions of Windows and consists of a list with all the changes that we can apply. There is an option that inspects the system and proposes the changes to be made, or we can check the boxes we want, depending on the level of cleaning we want. The list is quite long and is divided into categories, these are some of the functions we found: System: shows details if there is a blue screen instead of a sad face, optimizes system sensitivity, speeds up shutdown time… Microsoft Edge– makes it not the default browser, disables the Copilot icon, removes the shopping assistant, does not show sponsored links when opening a tab… Interface: Turn off transparency effects, hide taskbar search, turn off Bing search… gaming: Disables DVR recording, power throttling and visual effects. Privacy: disables activity history and location tracking Advertisements– Remove ads system-wide. AI– Hides Copilot from the taskbar and disables Windows Recall. Bloatware. There is more. Winslop is divided into three tabs: Windows 11, applications and extensions. From the apps section we can eliminate pre-installed applications such as Bing News, Bing Weather, WindowsCamera and many more. As in the other section, pressing the ‘Inspect System’ button gives us a list of suggestions to eliminate and we mark the ones we want. It’s not the first. Recently we told you about a tool that was born with the same objective (although with a name with less punch), RemoveWindowsAI. Like Winslop, it also disables all AI functions, but beyond its functions, the important thing is that its simple existence was already a symptom of community fatigue. The fact that another app has come out only confirms it. The PC IA. The obsession with turning Windows into an agentic system has collided head-on with what the community is asking for, to the point that Microsoft is losing favor with users. A year ago PCs with AI promised to be a revolutionbut they have come face to face with reality and even historical brands like Dell are changing their discourse. Microsoft is left alone. Image | Winslop In Xataka | There’s a reason AI PCs aren’t hurting Apple: Nobody asked for AI PCs

the Horizontal Property Law

by

Unknowns may loom on Spain’s horizon, but one thing is certain: the country is aging. Yeah the latest projections of the INE are spot on. By mid-century, almost a third of the population (30.5%) will have blown out all 65 candles. The problem is that many of our buildings are not prepared to accommodate older people due to their architectural barriers or accessibility deficiencies. Thus, an interesting question remains: What happens if at a given moment a neighbor in a block demands a ramp or an elevator to get to their home? The Horizontal Property Law is clear about it. What has happened? That on Spain’s horizon there is a ticking time bomb that will affect thousands of buildings in the country. The reason: although Spanish society it’s getting older (something that happens in many other nations, inside and outside Europe) a good part of its residential park is not prepared to accommodate people with mobility problems. The challenge is best understood when reviewing two recent studies: the demographic forecasts of the INE and the report on “accessible mobility” launched in 2024 by Ilunion and Otis. And what do they say? The first (INE) reveals that in a matter of a few decades the percentage of septuagenarians, octogenarians and nonagenarians will grow considerably. Yes right now 20.4% of Spaniards are 65 or older, in 2055 that footprint will have expanded to around 30.5%. The second (the report of Ilunion) warns that 34.3% of the main homes (6.45 million) are located in buildings without easy access, in the opinion of their residents. In fact, only 20.8% are prepared for the aging of their tenants. It is not surprising if we take into account that in our country there are five million people who live in buildings of three or more heights that lack an elevator, so they have no choice but to go up and down stairs every time they want to go outside. That’s what I suggested at least. an analysis published two years ago by elDiario.es and which is based on microdata from the Survey of Essential Population and Housing Characteristics, a poll of the INE. What if someone asks for an elevator? That is the question that hovers over many communities of neighbors in Spain and They responded recently our colleagues from Decoesfera. What happens if suddenly an owner proposes installing a ramp or an elevator in the building, a structure that guarantees accessibility to all homes? Do you need board approval? And if the work is carried out, are all residents obliged to bear its cost, including those who live on the ground floor and will not use the elevator? Are there any circumstances in which an owner can require infrastructure that guarantees accessibility? As is usual in building issues, the answer is in the legal “bible” of neighborhood coexistence: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). More specifically in article 10. What does the law say? That if the request comes from owners with reduced mobility or of advanced age (those who a priori have more difficulties getting around) the works must be carried out no matter what. Without the need for prior agreement from the Board of Owners, although there is advice that advise that the issue be addressed in meetings to seek agreements. Especially due to the cost that usually involves installing ramps, elevators or stair lifts. In your article 10.1 The LPH clarifies that “the “works necessary to guarantee reasonable adjustments in terms of universal accessibility and, in any case, those required at the request of the owners in whose home or premises in whose home or premises people with disabilities or people over 70 live, work or provide voluntary services” will be mandatory and will not require prior agreement from the board. And in case there are any doubts, the law emphasizes that the objective is to ensure their mobility, which may involve the installation of ramps or elevators. Does it say anything about costs? Yes. Although the LPH makes it clear The right of elderly and disabled owners to demand ramps and elevators also establishes certain limits as far as costs are concerned: neighbors must contribute “provided that the amount passed on annually from them, once subsidies or public aid has been deducted, does not exceed 12 ordinary monthly payments of common expenses.” From Alapont clarify that the rule refers to the fixed contributions that each neighbor contributes to help with ordinary expenses. What if there are subsidies? If the cost of the work exceeds these 12 ordinary monthly payments, the difference must be paid by the owners interested in having the elevator or ramp installed. The LPH adds that in any case the rest of the neighbors will have to assume their part of the spill. “It will also be mandatory to carry out these works when the public aid to which the community can have access reaches 75% of the amount thereof,” precise. The key is that the law does not talk about works related to the aesthetics of the property, but about something much more basic: universal accessibility, that all its residents can enter and exit, free of barriers. When the elevator is claimed by a neighbor who does not meet the requirements set out in the LPH (under 70 years of age and without functional diversity), the proposal must receive the endorsement of a simple majority in the board. If the measure goes ahead and receives the green light, all neighbors must participate, Alapont clarifiesincluding those who reside on the ground floor. Images | Diego Marín (Unsplash) and Elio E. López Vega (Unsplash) Via | Decosphere In Xataka | Spain is filling up with buildings with pets. The Horizontal Property Law clarifies what to do when they cause nuisance

Telephone spam is so desperate in Spain that the Government has had to pass another law to put an end to it

by

If there is something that all of Spain agrees on, it is that we must put an end to spam calls, the problem is that at the moment it is not being an easy task. Have call filters that identify them, we can report If they call us without permission and there is even laws to end thembut they keep calling us. Now the Government is back on track with the new Law on Customer Service Services. Another law. It was approved in Congress last month and is waiting to go through the Senate for final approval. It is the first state law to regulate customer service and places special emphasis on abusive practices such as automatic renewals without consent and commercial calls. It is striking that it is already the second law that includes measures against this practice (first was the General Telecommunications Law), which shows that the problem continues despite previous measures. Against spam. The Government banned commercial calls without permission in 2023the problem is that most contracts include a clause called “prior consent”, so the prohibition is of little use. More recently They have banned spam calls from mobile numbers and now the new law includes new measures. Companies will be required to use specific prefixes that distinguish commercial and customer service calls. Operators must block commercial calls that do not use such codes. To discourage companies, contracts closed through non-consensual commercial calls will be declared void. Doubts. The new measures pose more obstacles for companies that bombard us with calls, but we have already seen that the law is made, the trap is made. The obligation to implement specific codes sounds much more effective than other previous measures, but the reality is that we have been talking about the end of spam calls for years and they still continue to call us, so the doubts are there. Furthermore, we still have the problem of telephone scams that escape the regulations. Fake reviews. The fight against spam calls is only one part of the new law. The text also includes fake reviews for the first time, a problem we have been talking about for years. The law sets a limit of 30 days to be able to post a review and prohibits buying and selling reviewsalthough it does not specify how it will fight against this practice. Other measures. The law also includes other obligations for companies that provide customer service: Companies must report the total price of the service from the beginning, including management costs that may make the product more expensive, as often occurs in ticket sales. Customer service numbers cannot be premium rate numbers. They must guarantee that 95% of calls are answered in less than 3 minutes. Customers may request to speak to an operator at any time during the call. The period for addressing claims is reduced to 15 days. If the claim is for an improper charge, the period is reduced to five days. Companies with more than 250 employees that have a turnover of more than 50 million euros must guarantee service in the co-official language of the territory in which they operate. When a contract is automatically renewed, companies must inform 15 days in advance and facilitate cancellation of the service. Image | Pexelsedited In Xataka | If you are tired of receiving spam calls every day, good news: MasOrange is tired too

Spain is filling up with buildings with pets. The Horizontal Property Law clarifies what to do when they cause nuisance

by

It comes with going outside to check it out. Spain is increasingly a country of dogs and cats than of babies. Literally. about a year ago The World did the math and it turned out that there are 1.8 million children under four years old for 10.5 million pets, which leaves a ratio of almost six animals per infant. This is perceived in the economy, society, cities… and of course the neighborhood communities, where it is not strange that a question arises: ¿What the law says about pets living in apartment blocks? In case of discomfort, noise, dirt… What does the regulations provide? Are there so many pets? Yes. Although it is not easy to compile accurate statistics on pets, there are two sources that help us get a precise idea of ​​the extent to which we have opened our homes to dogs, cats, reptiles, rodents, fish, birds and other fauna. The first is the REIACwhose census is based on microchipped pets. At least in 2023 it added 9.2 million dogs and 1.2 million cats. If we base ourselves on Anfaac, the association of feed manufacturers, your latest data They speak of 6.9 million dogs, 4.9 million cats, five million fish, 3.2 birds, 740,000 reptiles and 548,000 small mammals, which raises the general count of pets above the 20 million of animals. The big question, especially when we talk about pets of a certain size, that run around and must go outside several times a day, as is the case with dogs, is… What happens when they cause disturbances inside a building? When it comes to communities of owners, the reference standard is the Horizontal Property Law (LPH), a law that does not address the issue directly, but does establish a valuable framework, especially in its articles 7.2 and 9.1, which recall the coexistence guidelines that neighbors must respect. Article 7.2 of the LPH: “The owner and occupant of the apartment or premises are not allowed to carry out activities in it or in the rest of the property that are prohibited in the statuses, that are harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities”. Article 9 of the LPH: “The obligations of each owner are: to respect the general facilities of the community and other common elements, whether they are for general or private use of any of the owners, whether or not they are included in their apartment or premises, making appropriate use of them and preventing damage or damage from being caused”. The regulations themselves also remind us that, in the event that a neighbor is carrying out annoying activities (which in this case can be transferred to your pet), the community president should ask you to correct them. If that does not happen and the problem persists, the case may end up being taken to court. Although the LPH is a key tool, other standards come into play in this case. The reason is simple. When we talk about pets and neighborhood communities, two different planes overlap. On the one hand, there is the right that everyone has to enjoy their home freely. On the other hand, there is the necessary coexistence between apartments and the shared enjoyment of community areas. The first thing, the enjoyment of the home, is regulated the Constitutionwhich among other issues protects its “inviolability” and private property. Regarding the second, coexistence within the building, it is normal that it is regulated by the statuses of the community. And although this document cannot prohibit owners to have pets at home (a different thing is the tenants and what appears in their rental contracts), the internal rules of a block can establish certain limits when using collective spaces, such as elevators, gardens or swimming pools. Therefore, it is advisable to consult what the statutes say about pets. For example, they may prohibit dogs from being walked off-leash in the building. What there is no doubt about is that if the animal causes any damage, the owner is responsible. It is clearly established by the Civil Code in his article 1905in which he remembers who should assume the responsibility (and costs) if a dog, cat or other animal causes damage outside your home. Article 1905 of the Civil Code: “The owner of an animal, or the one who uses it, is responsible for the damage it causes, even if it escapes or is lost. This responsibility will only cease in the event that the damage came from force majeure or the fault of the person who suffered it.”. The Animal Welfare Law also sets guidelines related to the care of pets at home, which in turn influences the conditions in which they must live, both in houses and in apartments within buildings. For a start (article 27.i) No pet can be left unsupervised for more than three days in a row, a period that is reduced to 24 consecutive hours if we are talking about dogs. The rule also prohibits dogs and cats from living permanently on terraces or balconies, which is considered a “serious infringement”. Image | Eri Gonzales (Unsplash) In Xataka | The Horizontal Property Law is quite clear about one of the most conflictive phenomena of winter: Christmas

Every Christmas there are people who fill their balconies with lights and decorations. The Horizontal Property Law has something to say

by

It happens December after December. As the holidays approach, there are balconies, windows and facades that are invaded by a mixture of led lights, garlands, papanoels Various Christmas-themed pendants and ornaments. Where before there was a simple and nondescript terrace, suddenly there is a confusing mass of colors, lights and shapes that leaves bouncing a tricky question: Do apartment owners have the right to turn their balconies into small theme parks? To answer it you have to go to the LPH. Lights, give me (many) lights. The one from Vigo may be the best known casebut there are many cities in Spain that in recent years have begun to fill their streets with thousands (or even millions) of Christmas lights, far surpassing the decorations that could be seen a decade ago. In the Galician city they boast this year of having nearly 12 million of LEDs spread across 460 neighborhoods, in Madrid they talk about 13 millionin Alcalá de almost fivein the busiest areas of Malaga they will shine 2.7 million…And so on a long list of cities that every Christmas put on a peculiar suit of lights. And what happens in the buildings? The City Councils are not the only ones that get carried away by this lighting fury. Every year there are people who transfer this display of lights and decorations to their own homes, both inside their homes, with Christmas trees, nativity scenes or garlands, and to balconies and facades. It comes with taking a walk through most cities to see people who, when December arrives, fill their terraces with colored LEDs or even decorations that stick out from the balcony. The catalog is extensive: papanoels pendants, decorations of wise men climbing stairs or garlands that fall from the façade. Can they do it? A quick Google search shows that that question reborn each Decembercoinciding with the dates on which people decorate their homes. Can the rest of the neighbors forbid me from giving free rein to my passion for Christmas decorations? Are there limits when we talk about decorating balconies? If I want to decorate a common area of ​​the building, do I need permission from my neighbors? These are questions frequently enough that platforms specialized in both law and the real estate market have devoted attention to them over the last few years. Two clear cases are Legalites and Photohouse. The best: communication. These may seem like far-fetched questions, but we must take into account a fundamental fact: the balconies, facades and roofs of a building do not have the same condition as the living room or kitchen of a home. Terraces, for example, are usually spaces for private use: they are enjoyed exclusively by the owner of the apartment, but in reality they are common elements, so the owner cannot do whatever he wants with them. Without going any further, before carrying out a work, what recommend agencies like Reale is to consult with the board. The same logic can be transferred to Christmas decorations if what we have in mind is to make a huge display of lights or decorate the facade. The first thing is to confirm if the community statutes regulate the exterior aesthetics of the building. As they remember in LegálitasIf we want to install decoration that invades the sidewalk, public spaces or street furniture, it is also advisable to consult the City Council first. After all, the private use of these spaces may require a permit or even entail the payment of a fee. LPH Word. When we talk about communities and coexistence, there is a reference standard that is always good to keep in mind: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). The text does not specifically talk about LED lights, Christmas trees or papanoels pendants, but gives some guidelines that are applicable in these cases. One of its clearest articles on the matter is the seventh, which clarifies what exactly the owner of an apartment or premises can and (cannot) do: “You may modify the architectural elements, facilities or services of the building when it does not undermine or alter the safety of the building, its general structure, the external configuration or state, or harm the rights of other owners, and must report such works to whoever represents the community.” “The owner and occupant of the apartment or premises are not allowed to carry out activities in it or in the rest of the property that are prohibited in the statutes, that are harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities,” adds the LPH in the same article. In case there were any doubts, the norm (citing in turn the Civil code) remember that there are elements subject to a “co-ownership” regime. Why is it important? Because although the wording of the LPH may be generic and does not explicitly talk about Christmas decorations, it touches on the key points that can generate conflict between the different neighbors of a block. To be more precise, it emphasizes that no owner can “undermine” the “external configuration and state” of the property or “harm” the rest of the tenants. So, if we decide to turn our balconies into small tributes to Christmas, we will have to ask ourselves a series of questions first: Do the decorations hang or stick out enough to affect the “exterior configuration” of the property? Is the installation of outlets, wiring and lights safe? If they are very close to another neighbor’s window, can we cause inconvenience? “Out of prudence”. The most advisable thing is therefore to keep all these issues in mind and above all to be aware of the internal rules of each community. Also communicate with those responsible. So advises it in elDiario.es Patricia Briones, from the College of Property Administrators of Madrid (CAFMadrid). “Any neighbor who wishes to install decorative elements in a common space on a private basis must, out of prudence and to avoid conflicts, request authorization from the board,” … Read more

The only thing that Europe’s AI Law has achieved is to leave us lame. The question is whether turning back will do any good.

by

December 8 was a fateful day for the European Union, but not many realized it. And it was because that day the AI ​​Act was passedthe European regulation on artificial intelligence. Thierry Breton, European commissioner, he was pleased with a tweet that automatically became a meme. I was bragging about how Europe had tripped itself up. The responses to that tweet They made it clear that the reception of the regulations was very different from what the EU would have expected. The criticism was forceful and very clear: with these regulations the only thing the EU was achieving was to slow down innovation and make it even more difficult to compete in a segment that was defining the world. While the US and China joined the party without asking permission and without asking for forgiveness, Europe stayed at home happily crocheting. That regulation, which came into force in August 2024instantly caused the AI ​​segment out at two speeds: that of Europe, almost at a standstill, and that of the rest of the world, which stepped on the accelerator (without looking too closely at the consequences). We have seen the consequences of that in the last two years. Europe has been relegated to the second (or third) plane, and with honorable exceptions like the Spanish Freepik or the French Mistral, we have very little to talk about in this area. Meanwhile, the US dominates the commercial plane and China is a steamroller both at a training level as in your open model development. Europe wants to turn back: the question is whether it is too late Yesterday the European Commission presented a project for simplify various digital regulationsand the most important modifications actually affect the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPRor GRPD for its acronym in English). The changes proposed by the Commission will make it easier for companies to share sets of anonymised and pseudo-anonymised personal data. That will have a direct impact on the capacity of AI companies, which They will be able to legally use personal data to train their data models as long as that process meets the rest of the GDPR requirements. The proposal also softens one of the key elements of the AI ​​Act, which, as we say, came into force in August 2024 but included several elements that would come into force some time later. Thus, now the “grace period” for the regulations that regulate the high risk AI systems —those that pose a “serious risk” to health, safety or fundamental rights—is widespread. It was supposed to be activated in summer 2016, but now that regulation will only apply when it is confirmed that “the necessary standards and supporting tools are available” for AI companies… whatever those standards and tools are, yet to be defined. Other amendments in that new Digital Omnibus include simplified requirements for the documentation required of SMEsin addition to a unified interface so that companies can report cybersecurity incidents. Henna Virkkunen, vice president of technological sovereignty at the European Commission, explained that: “In the EU we have all the ingredients to be successful. However, our businesses, especially startups and small businesses, are often held back by a set of rigid rules. By reducing bureaucracy, simplifying EU legislation, opening access to data and introducing a common European business portfolio, we are creating space for innovation to be produced and commercialized in Europe. This is being done the European way: by ensuring that users’ fundamental rights remain fully protected.” These amendments to current digital regulations will now have to be approved by the European Parliament and the 27 member states of the European Union — which will need a qualified majority— to approve it. That process could last months, and during it the proposals themselves could see notable changes before being applied. As indicated in The Guardianthis “massive setback” of this regulation has caused concern among groups fighting to continue protecting privacy of European citizens. The European Digital Rights (EDRi), a pan-European network of NGOs, Indian that if the changes to the regulation are accepted, it will become easier for technology companies to collect and use personal data to train AI models without asking for consent. The European agenda seemed to change when former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi warned last fall of how Europe had fallen worryingly behind in the technology race. That speech was a breath of fresh air for Europeand European business groups have welcomed the proposal with optimism, but believe that they still fall short. A representative of the Computer and Communications Industry Association of which Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta are members indicated that “efforts to simplify digital and technology regulations should not stop there.” One click for cookies This simplification of regulation that affects all types of digital scenarios can have a positive effect. Accepting or rejecting cookies has become a daily torture for millions of Europeansbut the user experience may improve significantly in the coming months. And it may get better because the EU has proposed a modernization of policies related to cookies. To try to improve the browsing experience, it will limit the number of times cookie warning banners appear, but also will make it possible for us to accept or reject cookies with a single click. In fact, the future may be even more promising, because what is intended is that said consent (or denial) of cookies is integrated into our browser so that once we configure it, the websites are not constantly asking us if we accept cookies or not: the browser will know what we want and will answer for us at all times. In that “digital package” it is specified that once we accept or reject cookies with that “single-click“, websites must respect that choice of citizens for six months. Image | Christian Lue In Xataka | For the EU, our privacy has always been more important than AI. Until he understood that he was left behind

A man found a wallet with more than 800 euros and took it to the police. Now they are yours thanks to a law from 1889

by

Tea you find a wallet lying in a train car and there is no one around who could have fallen. Inside, more than 800 euros in cash. This is what happened to Carmen, a resident of Pamplona, ​​two years ago. In an act of honesty, the woman took the wallet to the National Police. Two years later, he can say that being honest has a reward. At least if you wait long enough. what has happened. They tell it in the Navarra Newspaper. In November 2023, Carmen took a train and in one of the cars she found a wallet full of tickets. It belonged to a Turkish citizen and, in addition to the documentation and credit cards, it contained 817.96 euros in cash. He handed over the wallet and all its contents to a National Police station, the same one where two years later they gave him all the money because no one had claimed it. ANDs law. The Civil Code, published in 1889, regulates what should be done with lost objects. Specifically, article 615 It is what indicates how to proceed when an object is found. The first thing is to return it to its owner and, if the owner is not known, it must be handed over to the authorities, who must try to locate the owner and guard the object. If two years pass since the discovery and no one has claimed it, the object will be given to whoever found it. Foresighted. When she handed the wallet to the Police, Carmen was informed of this legislation and decided that, in addition to being honest, she was also going to be farsighted. An alarm was set on his cell phone so that he would not forget and, two years later, he returned to the police station, where they handed him the 817.96 euros that no one had claimed. It is not the first case in which honesty ends up being rewarded. In 2024, two residents of Almassora received 600 euros that they had found lying in the middle of the street. Misappropriation. Many people would probably have kept the money and returned only the wallet. In this case, it would be a crime of misappropriation which, depending on the value, may be subject to a fine of three to six months. In the event that the object found had “artistic, historical, scientific or cultural value” it could result in a prison sentence of six months to two years. Image | Catalin Cardei, Pexels In Xataka | The “son in distress” scam had been wreaking havoc throughout Spain for years. The police are finally breaking it up

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.