scholarly journals The Right to Be Forgotten: A Controversial Topic Under the General Data Protection Regulation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorida Xhafaj ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 485-502
Author(s):  
Miquel Peguera
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses data protection aspects of liability of online intermediaries with special emphasis on the right to be forgotten as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and later by national courts in Europe. It considers also relevant provisions within the General Data Protection Regulation and how they affect online intermediaries’ activities. This chapter briefly considers two manifestations of the right to be forgotten as they are being currently applied in the EU. First, the right to be forgotten vis-à-vis internet search engines; that is, the right to be delisted from search results. Secondly, the right-to-be-forgotten claims directed against primary publishers to have the information deleted or anonymized at the source. In doing so, this chapter will point to hotly debated issues, recently addressed by the CJEU, such as the geographical scope of the right to be forgotten, that is its possible extraterritorial application, and the prohibition of processing of sensitive data that should theoretically apply to all data controllers, including those online intermediaries that qualify as such. This chapter also considers how balancing of rights should occur when right-to-be-forgotten claims to delist content are brought against search engines or publishers.

Europe's national regulators hold key to GDPR success

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Content Type ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
Robust Regulation

Subject GDPR appraisal and outlook. Significance May 25, 2019 is the first anniversary of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR enhanced the rights of citizens regarding their personal data, including by giving them the ‘right to be forgotten’, and tightened controls on how organisations and businesses collect, store and process such data. Impacts A key shortcoming is ensuring the compliance of business beyond ‘big tech’. Public awareness of the GDPR in smaller EU states will lag that in larger states. Criticism of the Irish regulator will rise if it fails to demonstrate a clearer commitment towards robust regulation.

scholarly journals The right to be protected, the right to be forgotten: the European General Data Protection Regulation 679/2016 in Emergency Medicine

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Cicchini ◽  
Mario Mazzeo ◽  
Donatella Livoli ◽  
Antonio Simone ◽  
Valentina Valeriano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right

Retention in “the right to be forgotten” scenario: a records management examination

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry Li Xie
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Records Management ◽  
Content Type ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right

Purpose This paper, through examining the judgment on Case C-131/12 and the European Union (EU)’s Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation, aims to demonstrate to the records management (RM) profession, the importance of being proactively involved in records creation identification and the challenges of performing sound retention analyses for newly emerging activities. It also serves as a call to the RM profession that more active participation in law-making processes is needed. Design/methodology/approach The research selects the current right to be forgotten phenomenon as an illuminating case and examines it with fundamental RM concepts and principles, in particular those relating to records creation and retention. The research process consists of three major parts: one, the establishment of an analytical framework based on RM theories; two, description of the selected case that is relevant to the analysis; and three, the application of the analytical framework to the described case. Findings Records retentions are much needed for the activities of data controllers that are now established by the most recent Judgment of the European Court of Justice pertinent to the right to be forgotten and the proposed General Data Protection Regulation. The determination of retention periods for such activities requires an RM framework that synthesizes the identification of digital records and the various types of value associated with the different usages of records. It is also observed that the data protection legal framework does not address RM considerations, or at least, not in any explicit, easily recognizable manners. Research limitations/implications Records retentions are much needed for the activities of data controllers and/or processors that are now required by the Judgment of the European Court of Justice and the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation, yet the legal framework does not offer any assistance in establishing retentions. It is also observed that the data protection legal framework fully acknowledges the importance of records but fails to address RM considerations – at least, not in any explicit, easily recognizable manners. Practical implications The findings are expected to be instructive to data controllers and/or processors, in particular with respect to records creation identification and records retention establishment in their organizations. It is also expected that the observations generated during the analysis process could shed light on the development of the RM profession. Social implications The right to be forgotten in the digital world has newly acquired complications, and it has the potential to affect not just the privacy right but also the rights considered conflicting to it, such as the rights of freedom of press and freedom of expression/speech. Efficient and effective RM programs should be able to assist their parent organizations in dealing with this complicated situation through creating and managing records that support the compliance of regulatory requirements on the one hand and the balancing of competing rights on the other hand. Originality/value The research appears to be the first of its kind according to the literature search conducted within the accessibility scope of the researcher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document