Right to be forgotten: european data imperialism, national privilege, or universal human right?

O. Gstrein
{"title":"Right to be forgotten: european data imperialism, national privilege, or universal human right?","authors":"O. Gstrein","doi":"10.7590/187479820X15881424928426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Digital Age has fundamentally reshaped the preconditions for privacy and freedom of expression. This transpires in the debate about a \"right to be forgotten\". While the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in \"Google Spain\" touches upon the underlying issue of how increasing\n amounts of personal data affects individuals over time, the topic has also become one of the salient problems of Internet Governance. On 24th September 2019 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in \"Google vs CNIL\" (C-507/17) which was supposed to clarify the territorial scope\n of the right. However, this judgment has raised doubts about the enforceability of the General Data Protection Regulation, and reveals the complex, multi-layered governance structure of the European Union. Acknowledging such complexity at a substantive and institutional level, this article\n starts by analysing the judgment. Additionally, to better understand the current situation in the European Union and its member states, recently produced draft guidelines by the European Data Protection Board are presented and discussed, as well as two judgments of the German Federal Constitutional\n Court. Subsequently, the European developments are put in international context. Finally, the insights from these sections are combined which allows to develop several conceptual ideas. In conclusion, it is argued that the right to be forgotten remains complex and evolving. Its success depends\n on effective multi-layer and multistakeholder interaction. In this sense, it has become a prominent study object that reveals potential venues and pitfalls on a path towards more sophisticated data protection frameworks.","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of European Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479820X15881424928426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The Digital Age has fundamentally reshaped the preconditions for privacy and freedom of expression. This transpires in the debate about a "right to be forgotten". While the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in "Google Spain" touches upon the underlying issue of how increasing amounts of personal data affects individuals over time, the topic has also become one of the salient problems of Internet Governance. On 24th September 2019 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in "Google vs CNIL" (C-507/17) which was supposed to clarify the territorial scope of the right. However, this judgment has raised doubts about the enforceability of the General Data Protection Regulation, and reveals the complex, multi-layered governance structure of the European Union. Acknowledging such complexity at a substantive and institutional level, this article starts by analysing the judgment. Additionally, to better understand the current situation in the European Union and its member states, recently produced draft guidelines by the European Data Protection Board are presented and discussed, as well as two judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the European developments are put in international context. Finally, the insights from these sections are combined which allows to develop several conceptual ideas. In conclusion, it is argued that the right to be forgotten remains complex and evolving. Its success depends on effective multi-layer and multistakeholder interaction. In this sense, it has become a prominent study object that reveals potential venues and pitfalls on a path towards more sophisticated data protection frameworks.
被遗忘权:欧洲数据帝国主义、国家特权,还是普世人权?
数字时代从根本上重塑了隐私和言论自由的先决条件。这体现在关于“被遗忘权”的辩论中。2014年欧洲法院对“谷歌西班牙”一案的裁决触及了个人数据量日益增加对个人的影响这一潜在问题,但这一话题也成为互联网治理的突出问题之一。2019年9月24日,欧洲法院在“Google vs CNIL”(C-507/17)一案中作出判决,旨在澄清该权利的地域范围。然而,这一判决引发了对《通用数据保护条例》可执行性的质疑,并揭示了欧盟复杂、多层次的治理结构。承认在实质和制度层面上的这种复杂性,本文从分析判决开始。此外,为了更好地了解欧盟及其成员国的现状,本文介绍并讨论了欧洲数据保护委员会最近制定的指导方针草案,以及德国联邦宪法法院的两项判决。随后,将欧洲的事态发展置于国际背景下。最后,将这些章节的见解结合起来,形成几个概念性的想法。最后,有人认为,被遗忘权仍然是复杂和不断发展的。它的成功取决于有效的多层次和多利益相关者的互动。从这个意义上说,它已经成为一个突出的研究对象,揭示了通往更复杂的数据保护框架的道路上的潜在场所和陷阱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信