Liabilities of Internet Users and Providers

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Sartor
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Conceptual Analysis ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Safe Harbour ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
General Data ◽  
Basic Ideas ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter explores the connection between host providers’ liability and data protection, particularly the right to be forgotten. A conceptual analysis provides basic ideas including privacy, publicity, and neutrality. Subsequently, host providers’ immunities in EU law are compared with safe harbour provisions in US law. Data protection exceptionalism, namely, the view that providers’ immunities do not apply to violations of data protection, is critically considered. Knowledge of illegality of hosted content as a condition for providers’ liability is examined, focusing on how different understandings of this requirement may affect providers’ behaviour. The EU General Data Protection Regulation is then considered, addressing the way it defines the interface between data protection and the role/liabilities of providers. Finally, an analysis of the right to be forgotten is proposed, focusing on how the passage of time affects the legally relevant interests involved and on how sanctions are likely to affect the actions of host providers/users.

scholarly journals Can the Internet Forget? – Rhe Eight to be Forgotten in the EU Law and its Actual Impact on the Internet. Comparison of the Approaches Towards the Notion and Assessment of its Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gebuza
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Actual Impact ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe main aim of the article is to provide analysis on the notion of the right to be forgotten developed by the CJEU in the ruling Google v. AEPD & Gonzalez and by the General Data Protection Regulation within the context of the processing of personal data on the Internet. The analysis provides the comparison of approach towards the notion between European and American jurisprudence and doctrine, in order to demonstrate the scale of difficulty in applying the concept in practice.

New Boundaries for the Right to Be Forgotten?

2020 ◽  
pp. 302-314
Author(s):  
Federica Casarosa ◽  
Dianora Poletti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
General Data ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

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.

Oblivion Is Full of Memory

2021 ◽  
pp. 441-465
Author(s):  
Anabelen Casares Marcos
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Internet ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to informational self-determination has raised bitter debate over the last decade as to the opportunity and possible scope of the right to demand withdrawal from the internet of personal information which, while true, might represent a detriment that there is no legal duty to put up with. The leading case in this topic is that of Mario Costeja, Judgment of the EU Court of Justice, May 13, 2014. The interest of recent European jurisprudence lies not so much in the recognition of such a right but in the appreciation of certain limits to its implementation, assisting data protection authorities in balancing the rights at stake in each case. Reflection on the current status of the issue considers rights and duties imposed in the matter by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of 27 April, known as the new General Data Protection Regulation.

From universal towards child-specific protection of the right to privacy online: Dilemmas in the EU General Data Protection Regulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 765-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milda Macenaite
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Average Child ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The new European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation aims to adapt children’s right to privacy to the ‘digital age’. It explicitly recognizes that children deserve specific protection of their personal data, and introduces additional rights and safeguards for children. This article explores the dilemmas that the introduction of the child-tailored online privacy protection regime creates – the ‘empowerment versus protection’ and the ‘individualized versus average child’ dilemmas. It concludes that by favouring protection over the empowerment of children, the Regulation risks limiting children in their online opportunities, and by relying on the average child criteria, it fails to consider the evolving capacities and best interests of the child.

Right to be forgotten likely to be EU-based

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Compliance ◽  
Content Type ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Technology Firms ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
European Court ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost

Subject The EU’s right to be forgotten principle. Significance An advocate-general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on January 10 stated the EU’s principle of ‘the right to be forgotten’ (RTBF) should only apply to internet users within the EU and not globally. The opinion does not constitute the Court’s ruling and ECJ judges do not always follow the advice of senior legal officials. The issue divides EU national authorities and large technology companies. Impacts US tech firms will continue to face fines from national EU regulators on alleged violations of the General Data Protection Regulation. EU actions against US tech firms will exacerbate transatlantic tensions. For smaller technology firms, the cost of EU regulatory compliance may be prohibitive.

scholarly journals Children and the ‘Right to be Forgotten’: what the right to erasure means for European children, and why Australian children should be afforded a similar right

2019 ◽  
Vol 170 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Bunn
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right

This article provides an overview of the right to erasure, or the right to be forgotten, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and how it is likely to impact on children. It contrasts the position of Australian children and their European counterparts. The article considers the benefits for children of a right to erasure, as well as some of its limitations, and recommends that Australia should introduce such a right.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document