The Unwanted Paradoxes Of the Right to Be Forgotten

2015

Since the beginning of the digital age, the balance between forgetting and remembering changed as Viktor Mayer-Schonberger mentioned. Before the penetration of digital media into the everyday life forgetting was the norm and remembering the exception. Thus, the power of the society belonged to the interest not to be forgotten. Today in the digital age with all the search engines like google and bing there is a shift in the balance between remembering and forgetting. This article reveals the importance of the right to be forgotten and the diffi culties of the legal implementation which is discussed nowadays. In this article, fi rst of all the different kind of privacy should be described in the change of it in the digital age. Afterwards the effect of the change of whoness into a digital whoness and its consequences will be shown.

Data has become the new currency of the digital age, and it may be seemingly impossible to protect our privacy and sensitive information. While individuals may find it extremely easy to upload pictures, comments or videos online. It is actually extremely difficult and possibly impossible to erase it from the internet completely. This ruling by the European addresses a genuine problem of privacy of individuals in the digital age. The internet has an unforgiving memory that can ruin people’s life. Questions were raised regarding this new directive, whether “the right to be forgotten” can be used as a tool that enables individuals to better control their image and existence on the internet. What societal and practical effect would it create? Is it prone to potential of misuse by individuals or organisation? Or more importantly, is “the right to be forgotten” is really achievable in today’s digital era? This essay will take a look at the notion of privacy in today’s digital era, argue the validity of the ‘right to be forgotten’ directive, examining whether the ‘right to be forgotten’ is achievable and analyse the various implication of the ruling.

Conhecimento & Diversidade, 2016

The article discusses the legal basis for establishing the right to be forgotten in Europe: Data Protection Directive, Proposal for General Data Protection Regulation and, Especially, the European case Google v. González, where search results by an individual's name were recognised as personal data, and search engine operators as data controllers, so the right to block such search results were established. The article also compares newly enacted Russian law with the European approach.

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/bjes/10/1/article-p58.xml, 2020

The article focuses on the right to be forgotten, which is at the center of changes in the concept of human rights in the digital age. The origins of the right to be forgotten in European legal doctrine and judicial practice, as well as its relationship with autonomy and identity, are analyzed. The article also examines the signifi cance of the new understanding of "time" and "data" for the adoption of this right, considering the infl uence of two key cases of the Court of Justice of the European union, such as Google v. Spain [2014] and Google v. CNIL [2019] on the concept of the right to be forgotten. The place of this right, its connection with privacy and European data protection law is debated. The article focuses on jurisdictional issues, paying particular attention to both the right to be forgotten and the understanding of the relationship between privacy a nd freedom of expression in the European union and the united States, and possible jurisdictional disputes around the world. The article also addresses the issue of balancing rights and legitimate interests, as well as the proportionality for applying the right to be forgotten, both in the European and global contexts.

In this article we argue that the European Union directive on "the right to be forgotten" is unrealistic and suggest instead a series of principles that can protect us from the potentially harmful publication of private information. The dissemination of personal information through public and private databases as well as social media is gradually educating humanity about reality: humans are weak; everyone misbehaves; and we need to learn to accept public knowledge of the imperfections of ourselves and others.

Frontiers in sociology and social research, 2022

THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN EUROPEAN UNION AND THE US, 2022

In digital era, access to information is very high and easy. Especially, the internet is the unique information pool and search engine operators have offers high opportunity to reach information. Although the access to information sounds good at first glance, some information is bad memory of individuals in theirs past. Especially, search engine operators make easier to access such information from news websites. As a result of this situation, individuals may would like to remove the content of these information from the websites based on the right to be forgotten. However, it is not still recognized universal human rights. The EU law and the US law have opposite approaches related to removal the content and the right to be forgotten. The GDPR(General Data Protection Regulation) recognizes the right to be forgotten in Europe but there is no relevant legislation which recognizes the Right to be Forgotten in the US. While it is possible to remove bad memories from the websites under European Union law as a rule, the US law rejects the right to be forgotten in favour of the freedom of expression. This situation is related to the liability of the websites and search engine operators. The purpose of this paper addresses the comparison of two opposite approaches on the right to be forgotten.

2020

This dissertation aims to fill a gap in the debate surrounding art. 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), better known as ‘the right to be forgotten’: a clear view on the problems that this right can address when it comes to personal information presented to users on the Web. The study traces how several kinds of Web applications (‘basic’ web pages, social network sites, and search engines), as well as viral outbreaks, can give rise to problematic online portrayals of individuals. The conclusion of the problem analyses, is that there is not one problem. The (occasionally) ‘long-lasting memory’ of the Web is just one of the issues. A overarching perspective is presented by approaching the mediating technology as a ‘narrator’ of a materialised narrative identity of referents. The study looks into the how and what of the problems, their key elements, and gives handholds for a fine-tuned application of art. 17 GDPR in a manner that respects the various interests at stake. The presented framework can help to contextualise, and in some cases maybe even overcome, potential conflicts between the right to erasure and the other interests involved, most notably those protected under the right to freedom of expression and information.

Few would argue against a reform on the current European data protection regime as much has changed in the digital world since the implementation of the Directive 95/46/EC (the Directive), in 1995. One of the most contentious issues is the so-called “right to be forgotten” (RTBF) which re-emerged after the delivery of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the matter of, the colloquially known as, the Google case in mid 2014. Much of the controversy surrounding this case has focused on the impact of the ruling on freedom of expression and the right of access to information. The essay will attempt in Part I to define and sketch the theoretical scope of the RTBF. Part II will refer to the Google case in order to put some content on the right and describe its repercussions. Part III will examine whether the newly created right substantially interferes with the right to freedom of expression from a more general perspective. Part IV will give a prediction on the applicability of the right in the near future, regionally and globally. Lastly, an answer in the main question will be attempted from a personal perspective.