Right to Be Forgotten: Much Ado About Nothing
Giancarlo Frosio2017, SSRN Electronic Journal
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
This article discusses the 'right to be forgotten' in the context of privacy regulations, particularly following the European Court of Justice's ruling in Google Spain v. Costeja. It critically examines the implications of this right on freedom of expression, its reception in various jurisdictions, and the potential risks of extraterritorial application. The piece aims to debunk prevalent misconceptions surrounding the right and analyzes its legal framework under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Related papers
Right to be forgotten on the internet in Europe and Russia
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.
(2014) «Old and new domains of privacy: towards the right to be forgotten” (Comments on "Case Google", C 131/12, of 13 May 2014)». ECJ Leading Cases, Sept, p. 1-11. [English written]
The article analyses the main findings of the landmark Case Google Spain and Google Inc v Mario Costeja and the Spanish Agency on Data Protection decided in the EJC Judgement of 13 May 2014. The article also explores the different legal cultural approaches in matters of privacy in the US and Europe.
The Right To Be Forgotten in the Google Spain Case (case C-131/12): A Clear Victory for Data Protection or an Obstacle for the Internet
The right to be forgotten is a new right that is introduced
The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’
Computer Law & Security Review, Volume 29, Issue 3, June 2013, Pages 229–235
The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation has caused a wide debate between lawyers and legal scholars and many opinions have been voiced on the issue of the right to be forgotten. In order to analyse the relevance of the new rule provided by Article 17 of the Proposal, this paper considers the original idea of the right to be forgotten, pre-existing in both European and U.S. legal frameworks. This article focuses on the new provisions of Article 17 of the EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and evaluates its effects on court decisions. The author assumes that the new provisions do not seem to represent a revolutionary change to the existing rules with regard to the right granted to the individual, but instead have an impact on the extension of the protection of the information disseminated on-line.
Recent Challenges of Data Protection Law in the European Union, with Special Regard to the Internet
FORUM: PUBLICATIONES DOCTORANDORUM JURIDICORUM, 2016
To Find or be Forgotten: Global Tensions on the Right to Erasure and Internet Governance
Journal of Global Faultlines
The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González enshrined the “right to forget” in the jurisprudence of the European Union. The judgment caused concern to transparency and open information advocates in terms of pitting a right to forget against the general right of the public to know. This, as this paper will argue, is a false distinction. The Internet is, and has always been, a regulated space. Nor is the right to free expression, even in its American form, absolute. While there are genuine concerns about how the balance is struck, evolving practice is likely to identify what cases deserve deletion, to those that do not. The biggest challenge lies in how, and who, tests that balance as to what is removed from the search engines of the Internet. Finding material is important but forgetting may be just as vital to liberties as well.
Privacy and International Compliance: When Differences Become an Issue
2010 AAAI Spring Symposium Series, 2010
This paper introduces key issues to the balance between data collection policies and privacy protection initiatives in an internationally unstructured legal framework. The right to privacy has been addressed and construed differently among jurisdictions, which leads to uncertainties regarding the cross-boarding data collection operations that often occur in the cyberspace. This paper focuses on the jurisprudence of the Brazilian Supreme Court, demonstrating (i) that the traditional approach given to privacy in Brazil is not accurate enough to deal with the new threats which arise in the cyberspace; (ii) that the concept of privacy should be redefined when applied to the cyberspace and; (iii) that differences among national privacy legislations challenge international compliance with regard to the right to privacy.
F. Di Ciommo - Privacy in Europe after Regulation (EU) No. 2016/679: What Will Remain of the Right to be Forgotten?
Regulation (EU) no 2016/679 (hereinafter 'GDPR'), which will become applicable throughout the EU from next May and will replace Directive 95/46/EC, contains the first legislative embodiment of the right to be forgotten. In other words, the personal right that, thanks also to the well known Google Spain case, has captured the attention of operators and academics alike. However, from a close examination of the new legislation it is arguable that the right to be forgotten could well end up being somewhat diminished once the GDPR takes effect. Indeed, many issues concerning the right in question have not been addressed, despite the fact that both case law and scholars in various Member States have much contributed in this debate recently. This work seeks to analyse the impact that the new legislation will have on the right to be forgotten, in particular having regard to how that right has been conceived in the Italian legal system in light of the Personal Data Protection Code and the most significant case law on the matter. The goal of the research is to demonstrate that even after the entry into force of the GDPR a crucial role in the actual definition of the concept of the right to be forgotten and the mechanics of protecting it will necessarily have to be played by the courts.
Related papers
Reconceptualizing the Right to Be Forgotten to Enable Transatlantic Data Flow
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2015
This Article examines the implications of the Google Spain case as well as the full-blown impact of the proposed GDPR that is estimated to go into effect in the European Union in 2017. The central problem with the right to be forgotten as conceptualized by the CJEU and the Commission is that the expansiveness of the right threatens to cannibalize free expression. Thus, this Article calls for a shrinking of the right to be forgotten to appropriately balance the right of data subjects to control personal information about themselves with free expression and the public interest in preserving history. We propose that the EU Commission operationalize free expression by narrowing the right to be forgotten for private persons, public officials, and public figures. Private persons will have the right to delete links to their own postings and repostings by third parties. They will have a right to delete links to postings created by third parties upon proof that the information serves no legi...
Behind closed doors? Justifying what's off limits online. An examination of the application of privacy laws online, particularly in the context of the EU's Right To Be Forgotten
The European Commission's proposal of a new 'right to be forgotten,' contained in the Draft General Data Regulation, sparked much controversy among US and European commentators, suggesting a more fundamental conceptual gulf between the two jurisdictions. For privacy advocates, the Commission's proposal is to be welcomed, as it may represent a first step towards a recalibration of the data imbalance precipitated by the Internet, in favour of the individual, and away from the State and private enterprise. This article sets out the Commission's proposal and examines the American objections to the right. It also sets out potential normative justifications for a new EU protection of data. Finally, it attempts to reconcile the two perspectives by reference to the functioning of the right in practice.
Walled Gardens of Privacy or “Binding Corporate Rules?”: A Critical Look at International Protection of Online Privacy
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 2012
Protecting Internet users’ privacy is a growing concern in the era of cloud computing, especially when one considers the absence of any effective international solutions. The existing Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, which were meant to guarantee stringent European Union (EU) data protection standards for U.S. companies, are ineffective. In order to protect the privacy of Internet users, the existing trans-Atlantic personal data exchange agreements need to be amended. This article presents the latest EU-proposed development in the area—a regulatory model based on amended Binding Corporate Rules (“BCR” or “BCRs”)—as introduced by EU Justice Commissioner Reding in late 2011. The 2012 reform of EU data protection regulations includes proposals to modify the EU approach to corporate personal data protection policies and to simplify regulations for companies participating in the EU market. The planned changes in EU legislation would have worldwide effects on international companies’ onlin...
Practical implementation of the right to be forgotten in the context of Google Spain decision
In: Communication Today, 2015
Forget About It?: Harmonizing European and American Protections for Privacy, Free Speech, and Due Process
Privacy and Power
The Eu „ Right to Be Forgotten”
Perspectives of Business Law Journal, 2014
The scientific paper aims at presenting the relevant legal aspects related to data protection in the EU (Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) in view of the ruling of the Court of justice of the European Union (C131/12), the content of the judgement of the court, how it has been enforced so far by Google and its impact on EU citizen and future legislation.
The Internationalisation of Information Privacy: Towards a Common Protection
The conventional view of privacy, at least shared among privacy scholars, is that privacy is a rather culture—dependent issue and would be interpreted much differently in various jurisdictions. Though this is pretty true in the pre—digital age, the scenario may have been under considerable change due to the fact of the creation of new social spheres and life experience by numerous new technologies in the digital age. The popular use of the Internet, portable devices, smart phones, geographical location devices, smart home facilities, as well as the accompanied exploitation of big data collected from such devices, create a new living environment or life structure in which personal data become highly valuable in market economy and critical for personal development. Not only our perception of privacy needs update in order to follow the new reality, but also people will acquire more commonly—shared life experience, sensibility and consciousness of one perspective of privacy: information privacy. Such commonalities consequent to living in the information age against the backdrop of escalating privacy invasion, all contribute to a more commonly accepted concept of information privacy; therefore the internalization or universalization of information privacy that is attributed to a more common life structure based on information digitization and connected networks and has long run impacts on our life and laws. This short article intends to explore this new tendency, namely the internalization (or universalization) of information privacy, in both life realities and different legal systems. It will first discuss what and how the digitalization of human life has contributed to a more shared life experience among human beings based on the increasing connectivity, and how this further enables or generates a common perception of information privacy across the world. Second, the article will explore how the recent legal developments in both domestic laws and international laws adapt to the new life realities beyond cultural difference and political divergence. For this purpose, definitions of information privacy are compared from different jurisdictions, International policy and law documents analysed, and various court verdicts discussed, showcasing the internalization tendency of information privacy. Last, the article proposes a coherent protection of information privacy in International law to remedy the present gridlock in improving Internet Governance after Snowden's revelations.
The Trouble With Using Search Engines as the Primary Vector of the Right to Be Forgotten
European privacy law currently implements the ‘right to be forgotten’ by positioning commercial search engine operators as the initial site of decision-making regarding its exercise. This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, there are a number of structural flaws in the mode of this decision-making that make it unclear that search engines are capable of (or interested in) incorporating a robust account of competing interests. Second, right to be forgotten requests are not susceptible to the same kind of algorithmic techniques search engines use to deal with other kinds of removal requests, meaning large numbers of decisions must be made rapidly and primarily by staff lacking formal legal qualifications. When compounded with the possibility of heavy penalties for failure to comply with the right under European law, these two issues suggest there is a significant potential for bias toward deletion rather than preservation of borderline links. A third problem is that the simple online forms provided by search engines for European data users making a deletion request mask a complicated legal analysis, meaning those who properly structure their requests in an appropriately technical and legal manner may have a higher chance of success in their claims. This threatens to open up a new digital divide along the axis of reputation. Finally, the massive compliance costs associated with this new right may serve as a form of anti-competitive lock-in, preventing the emergence of innovative new companies in ‘search’. In sum, if the right to be forgotten is to have real meaning in European law, search engines are not the correct vector for its implementation.
THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN EUROPEAN UNION AND THE US
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.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.