scholarly journals Data Protection and the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Practice: A UK Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Townend

AbstractWe are in an uncertain and complex period for data protection and privacy in Europe, and especially so in the UK, following the result of the ‘Brexit’ referendum on 23 June 2016. Information law, and data protection in particular, are of increasing concern for those in the business of knowledge sharing and information dissemination: media organizations, academic institutions and libraries. The notion of the ‘right to be forgotten’ is particularly troublesome, as lawyers, archivists, historians and philosophers grapple with the theoretical and practical implications. This article presents a selection of recent European and British policy and legal developments, and discusses how they are changing social practice and citizens’ engagement with information rights.

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 55-65
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini ◽  
Edoardo Celeste

AbstractThis article explores the challenges of the extraterritorial application of the right to be forgotten and, more broadly, of EU data protection law in light of the recent case law of the ECJ. The paper explains that there are good arguments for the EU to apply its high data protection standards outside its borders, but that such an extraterritorial application faces challenges, as it may clash with duties of international comity, legal diversity, or contrasting rulings delivered by courts in other jurisdictions. As the article points out from a comparative perspective, the protection of privacy in the digital age increasingly exposes a tension between efforts by legal systems to impose their high standards of data protection outside their borders – a dynamic which could be regarded as ‘imperialist’ – and claims by other legal systems to assert their own power over data – a dynamic which one could name ‘sovereigntist’. As the article suggests, navigating between the Scylla of imperialism and the Charybdis of sovereigntism will not be an easy task. In this context, greater convergence in the data protection framework of liberal democratic systems worldwide appears as the preferable path to secure privacy in the digital age.


Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.


Author(s):  
Federica Casarosa ◽  
Dianora Poletti

The right to be forgotten has come to the forefront of the academic debate as a reaction to Court of Justice's decision in case C-507/17 Google LLC c. CNIL concerning the issue of geographical extension of the delisting obligation. Along with the development of CJEU jurisprudence, national courts have developed their own caselaw interpreting and adapting the right to be forgotten, now included in art 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation, to the pre-existing legal framework. Italian courts, and in particular the Italian Supreme Court, have addressed in several occasions the features and facets of the right to be forgotten, and the recent decision of the Grand Chamber (n. 19681, 22 July 2019) is the last though not the least. Starting form this decision, the chapter will analyse how the Supreme Court has attempted to systematise the right to be forgotten distinguishing what is called the traditional application of the right from the ones emerging in the digital context.


Author(s):  
Helena U. Vrabec

Chapter 7 analyses the right to data portability set out in Article 20 of the GDPR. It first provides an overview of several commercial and regulatory initiatives that preceded the GDPR version of the right to personal data portability. Next, it explores the language of Article 20 to demonstrate the effects of the narrow scope of the right. The chapter then shows how data portability interacts with other data subject rights, particularly with the right to access and the right to be forgotten, before it describes manifestations of data portability in legal areas outside of the data protection law. Finally, the chapter explores the specific objective of the right to data portability under the GDPR as an enabler of data subjects’ control.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-40
Author(s):  
Louis-David Benyayer ◽  
Martin Kupp

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines for practitioners in choosing the right response to potential threats by open business models. Design/methodology/approach The study focuses on identifying the dimensions of open business models. It consisted of 32 interviews with experts on open business models complemented by panel discussions with a selection of experts to validate the findings. Findings Five dimensions of open business models are identified: motivation, object, community, action and governance. Based on those dimensions, three responding strategies are proposed. Practical implications This paper offers insights for strategists and entrepreneurs who consider developing open business models or are attacked by competitors or other market players with open business models. Originality/value Complementing previous research, this paper highlights how the five dimensions of open business model can serve as a tool to design appropriate strategies when confronted with new forms of competition.


2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 1049-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohsen M.D. Hassan

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate expert systems (ES) for selection of material handling (MH) equipment on their use of information and generation of equipment, and provide guidelines that can enhance developing them in the future. Design/methodology/approach – Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to evaluate efficiency of ES on their use of information and generation of equipment. Characteristics of benchmark ES are identified to serve as guidelines in developing future ES. Findings – Results of DEA indicate that most ES use a large amount of information that does not commensurate with the number and variety of equipment they generate. Research limitations/implications – The ideal MH equipment for a situation is not known whether it is selected by ES or other procedures. Therefore, this study focusses on efficiency of ES in using information to generate MH equipment without regard to whether ES produce the right equipment for a situation or not. Practical implications – Developers of future ES should consider the efficiency of an ES in using information and generation of equipment, in addition to considering its functions and methodologies. They should utilize means similar to those employed by benchmark methodologies and other ones that can be thought of to economize information and generate more number and variety of equipment, and thus render ES more useful to facility designers and manufacturing managers. Originality/value – The paper presents the first evaluation of ES for selection of MH equipment. The evaluation performed should enhance development of future ES in this field, and can be extended to ES in other application domains.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document