Skip to main content
Top

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Forget Me, Forget Me Not - Redefining the Boundaries of the Right to Be Forgotten to Address Current Problems and Areas of Criticism

Author : Beata Sobkow

Published in: Privacy Technologies and Policy

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In the landmark decision Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González, the Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that individuals have a so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, that is, the right to demand search engines to erase search results obtained through searches for their names. The ruling has been praised by many and seen as a welcome relief for individuals who were gradually losing all control over the private information stored about them online. However, because the court has failed to provide proper guidance as to the application and scope of the new right, the ruling has opened risks to freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information as well as introduced questions as to the legitimacy, fairness and international scope of the delisting process. Taking a closer look at the problems currently surrounding the right to be forgotten, this paper will attempt to narrow down and define the scope of the application of the new right. In order to do so, it will first argue that personal information should be predominantly protected by reliance on existing laws rather than through the creation of an ambiguous right to delist search results. It will then advocate for a rejection of the court’s broad formulation of the right to be forgotten and suggest that, in order to attain a fairer balance between the fundamental rights at stake, the right should be only permitted to apply in three, clearly defined and limited circumstances.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The most relevant (for the purposes of this paper) provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation 2016/679 as well as an excerpt from the decision in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González are set out the Appendix.
 
2
‘Personal data’ is defined in Directive, Art. 2(a) and GDPR, Art. 4(1). ‘Processing’ is defined in Directive, Art. 2(b) and GDPR, Art. 4(2).
 
3
‘Controller’ is defined in Directive, Art. 2(d) and GDPR, Art. 4(7).
 
4
See, e.g. the website http://​hiddenfromgoogle​.​afaqtariq.​com/​ which archives deleted links and displays them together with the relevant search term and the source that revealed the de-listed information.
 
5
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 11(1); European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 10.
 
6
Note that the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain a right to data protection but the ECHR largely includes such right in the Art. 8 right to respect for private life.
 
7
The EU Justice Commissioner stated that the RtbF must not ‘take precedence over freedom of expression or freedom of the media’ [20].
 
8
See also GDPR, Recital 65.
 
9
See [2224] for a discussion of the problems associated with criterion 2 set out by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party in its guidelines on the Google Spain decision [25].
 
10
The further retention of the personal data will be lawful where it is necessary, for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, for compliance with a legal obligation, for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, on the grounds of public interest in the area of public health, for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
 
11
See, e.g. criterion 9 set out by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party [25] and criterion 4.2.1.6 set out in the report prepared by The Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten [26].
 
12
See, e.g. criterion 8 of Article 29 Data Protection Working Party [25] and criterion 4.2.2.6 of The Advisory Council to Google [26].
 
13
Since Google Spain, Google has evaluated over 1,835,005 URLs [34].
 
14
See also [7, 21].
 
15
Note that the term ‘RtbF’ is not used, even once, in that document.
 
16
See Sect. 2.2.
 
17
See also Shoor [26]; Code Civil (French Civil Code), arts. 9-10 and Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany), §1–2.
 
18
See, e.g. the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Note also the existence of the so-called ‘Mary Bell injunctions’ protecting the identity of offenders discussed, e.g. by Whitehead [48].
 
19
See also Graux, Ausloos and Valcke [58].
 
20
See also Rosen [66].
 
21
For example, an overwhelming number of people in Japan use pseudonyms on social network sites [68]. See also Madden [69] and note the option of using services providing expiration dates for data as discussed by Mayer-Schönberger [70].
 
22
See also Microsoft’s report on revenge porn removal requests on Bing [75].
 
23
See criteria 4.2.1.3 and 4.2.1.6 of the report prepared by The Advisory Council to Google [26].
 
24
This appears to be an apt conclusion considering that Google accounts for 93% of online and mobile search traffic worldwide [77].
 
25
See also the recent decision of the Brazilian courts not to recognise a RtbF, as discussed by Sganzerla [79].
 
Literature
2.
go back to reference Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González. EMLR 27 (2014) Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González. EMLR 27 (2014)
4.
go back to reference Siry, L.: Forget me, forget me not: reconciling two different paradigms of the right to be forgotten. Ky LJ 3(103), 311 (2015) Siry, L.: Forget me, forget me not: reconciling two different paradigms of the right to be forgotten. Ky LJ 3(103), 311 (2015)
5.
go back to reference 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. OJ L281/31 (1995) 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. OJ L281/31 (1995)
6.
go back to reference de Azevedo Cunha, M.V., Itagiba, G.: Between privacy, freedom of information and freedom of expression: is there a right to be forgotten in Brazil? CLSR 32(4), 634 (2016) de Azevedo Cunha, M.V., Itagiba, G.: Between privacy, freedom of information and freedom of expression: is there a right to be forgotten in Brazil? CLSR 32(4), 634 (2016)
7.
go back to reference House of Lords: European Union Committee, 2nd Report of 2015, ‘EU Data Protection law: a ‘right to be forgotten’?’, HL Paper 40 (2015) House of Lords: European Union Committee, 2nd Report of 2015, ‘EU Data Protection law: a ‘right to be forgotten’?’, HL Paper 40 (2015)
10.
go back to reference Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 199/1 (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 199/1 (2016)
13.
go back to reference Peguera, M.: In the aftermath of Google Spain: how the “right to be forgotten” is being shaped in Spain by courts and the Data Protection Authority. IJLIT 23, 325 (2015) Peguera, M.: In the aftermath of Google Spain: how the “right to be forgotten” is being shaped in Spain by courts and the Data Protection Authority. IJLIT 23, 325 (2015)
14.
go back to reference Kulk, S., Borgesius, F.Z.: Google Spain v. González: did the court forget about freedom of expression? EJRR 5(3), 289 (2014) Kulk, S., Borgesius, F.Z.: Google Spain v. González: did the court forget about freedom of expression? EJRR 5(3), 289 (2014)
15.
go back to reference Case C-73/07 Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy. ECR I-9831 (2008) Case C-73/07 Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy. ECR I-9831 (2008)
16.
go back to reference Case C-101/01 Lindqvist v Aklagarkammaren i Jonkoping. ECR I-12971 (2003) Case C-101/01 Lindqvist v Aklagarkammaren i Jonkoping. ECR I-12971 (2003)
17.
go back to reference Case No 24061/04 Aleksey Ovchinnikov v Russia (2011) Case No 24061/04 Aleksey Ovchinnikov v Russia (2011)
18.
go back to reference Case No 35841/02 Österreichischer Rundfunk v Austria (2006) Case No 35841/02 Österreichischer Rundfunk v Austria (2006)
19.
go back to reference Case No 39954/08 Axel Springer AG v Germany (2012) Case No 39954/08 Axel Springer AG v Germany (2012)
22.
go back to reference Sartor, G.: The right to be forgotten: balancing interests in the flux of time. IJLIT 24, 72 (2016) Sartor, G.: The right to be forgotten: balancing interests in the flux of time. IJLIT 24, 72 (2016)
23.
go back to reference Korenhof, P., Ausloos, J., Szekely, I., Ambrose, M., Sartor, G., Leenes, R.: Timing the right to be forgotten: a study into “Time” as a factor in deciding about retention or erasure of data. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P. (eds.) Reforming European Data Protection Law. LGTS, vol. 20, pp. 171–201. Springer, Dordrecht (2015). doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8_7 Korenhof, P., Ausloos, J., Szekely, I., Ambrose, M., Sartor, G., Leenes, R.: Timing the right to be forgotten: a study into “Time” as a factor in deciding about retention or erasure of data. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P. (eds.) Reforming European Data Protection Law. LGTS, vol. 20, pp. 171–201. Springer, Dordrecht (2015). doi:10.​1007/​978-94-017-9385-8_​7
24.
go back to reference McNealy, J.: The emerging conflict between newsworthiness and the right to be forgotten. N Ky L Rev. 39, 119 (2012) McNealy, J.: The emerging conflict between newsworthiness and the right to be forgotten. N Ky L Rev. 39, 119 (2012)
25.
go back to reference Article 29: Data Protection Working Party, ‘Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgement on “Google Spain and INC v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González” C-131/12’. WP225, 26 November 2014 Article 29: Data Protection Working Party, ‘Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgement on “Google Spain and INC v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González” C-131/12’. WP225, 26 November 2014
31.
go back to reference Shoor, E.: Narrowing the right to be forgotten: why the European Union needs to amend the proposed data protection regulation. Brook J. Int. L. 39(1), 487 (2014) Shoor, E.: Narrowing the right to be forgotten: why the European Union needs to amend the proposed data protection regulation. Brook J. Int. L. 39(1), 487 (2014)
35.
go back to reference Kerr, J.: What is a search engine? The simple question the court of justice of the European Union forgot to ask and what it means for the future of the right to be forgotten. Chi J. Int. L. 17(1), 217 (2016) Kerr, J.: What is a search engine? The simple question the court of justice of the European Union forgot to ask and what it means for the future of the right to be forgotten. Chi J. Int. L. 17(1), 217 (2016)
36.
37.
39.
go back to reference CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd. EWHC 1326 (2011) CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd. EWHC 1326 (2011)
40.
go back to reference Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd. EWCA Civ 446 (2008) Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd. EWCA Civ 446 (2008)
41.
42.
go back to reference Applause Store Productions Ltd. v Raphael. EWHC 1781 (2008) Applause Store Productions Ltd. v Raphael. EWHC 1781 (2008)
43.
44.
go back to reference Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd. EWHC 620 and the Defamation Act 2013 (2015) Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd. EWHC 620 and the Defamation Act 2013 (2015)
45.
go back to reference Edmund Irvine v Talksport Ltd. 2 All ER 414 (2002) Edmund Irvine v Talksport Ltd. 2 All ER 414 (2002)
46.
47.
go back to reference Pagallo, U., Durante, M.: Legal memories and the right to be forgotten. In: Floridi, L. (ed.) Protection of Information and the Right to Privacy - A New Equilibrium?. LGTS, vol. 17, pp. 17–30. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05720-0_2 CrossRef Pagallo, U., Durante, M.: Legal memories and the right to be forgotten. In: Floridi, L. (ed.) Protection of Information and the Right to Privacy - A New Equilibrium?. LGTS, vol. 17, pp. 17–30. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-05720-0_​2 CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Klug, F., Starmer, K., Weir, S.: The Three Pillars of Liberty: Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom. Routledge, London (1996) Klug, F., Starmer, K., Weir, S.: The Three Pillars of Liberty: Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom. Routledge, London (1996)
55.
57.
go back to reference Ambrose, M., Ausloos, J.: The right to be forgotten across the pond. J. Inf. Policy 3, 1 (2012) Ambrose, M., Ausloos, J.: The right to be forgotten across the pond. J. Inf. Policy 3, 1 (2012)
59.
go back to reference Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd. EWHC 1777 (2008) Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd. EWHC 1777 (2008)
62.
63.
go back to reference Bolton, R.L.: The right to be forgotten: forced amnesia in a technological age. J. Marshall J. Inf. Technol. Priv. L. 31, 133 (2015) Bolton, R.L.: The right to be forgotten: forced amnesia in a technological age. J. Marshall J. Inf. Technol. Priv. L. 31, 133 (2015)
64.
go back to reference Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) COM. 11 final (2012) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) COM. 11 final (2012)
65.
go back to reference Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Art. 1 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Art. 1
66.
go back to reference Rosen, J.: The right to be forgotten. Stan. L. Rev. Online 64, 88 (2012) Rosen, J.: The right to be forgotten. Stan. L. Rev. Online 64, 88 (2012)
67.
go back to reference Sellars, S.: Online privacy: do we have it and do we want it? A review of the risks and UK case law. EIPR 33(1), 9 (2011) Sellars, S.: Online privacy: do we have it and do we want it? A review of the risks and UK case law. EIPR 33(1), 9 (2011)
71.
go back to reference Ambrose, M.: It’s about time: privacy, information life cycles, and the right to be forgotten. Stan. Technol. L. Rev. 16(3), 101 (2013) Ambrose, M.: It’s about time: privacy, information life cycles, and the right to be forgotten. Stan. Technol. L. Rev. 16(3), 101 (2013)
78.
go back to reference Yan, M.N.: Protecting the right to be forgotten: is mainland China ready? Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. 1, 190 (2015)CrossRef Yan, M.N.: Protecting the right to be forgotten: is mainland China ready? Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. 1, 190 (2015)CrossRef
82.
go back to reference Werro, F.: The right to inform v the right to be forgotten: a transatlantic clash. In: Ciacchi, A.C., et al. (eds.) Liability in the Third Millennium. FRG (2009) Werro, F.: The right to inform v the right to be forgotten: a transatlantic clash. In: Ciacchi, A.C., et al. (eds.) Liability in the Third Millennium. FRG (2009)
Metadata
Title
Forget Me, Forget Me Not - Redefining the Boundaries of the Right to Be Forgotten to Address Current Problems and Areas of Criticism
Author
Beata Sobkow
Copyright Year
2017
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67280-9_3

Premium Partner