THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN DATA PROTECTION LAW AND TWO WESTERN CULTURES OF PRIVACY

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Uta Kohl
{"title":"THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN DATA PROTECTION LAW AND TWO WESTERN CULTURES OF PRIVACY","authors":"Uta Kohl","doi":"10.1017/S0020589323000258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Data protection law has emerged as an important bulwark against online privacy intrusions, and yet its status within privacy law remains awkward. Its starting point of protecting ‘personal’ rather than ‘private’ information puts it at odds with privacy more generally. Indeed, in its very design, data protection law caters for the protection of public personal information, or personal information which has attained a degree of publicness through disclosure. Building on James Whitman's comparative privacy study, this article argues that data protection law is not the odd bedfellow of privacy law properly so called but may be understood as a manifestation of the Continental European culture of privacy. Its distinctiveness does not lie in its apparent technicality but in its robust openness to privacy in public—an idea that is alien to the Anglo-American culture of privacy. Whilst these two cultures of privacy have long ‘met’ in different jurisdictions, this article locates their enduring influence and antagonism within three contemporary privacy regimes. By taking the right to be forgotten, as an archetypal privacy-in-public right, in the testing context of spent criminal convictions, the article gauges the comparative openness to such claims, first, of the Court of Justice of the European Union as the authoritative voice on General Data Protection Regulation normativity; secondly, of the US judiciary as committed to the First and Fourth Amendment; and, thirdly, of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its fused Anglo-American and Continental European privacy jurisprudence. It is the latter jurisprudence in particular that highlights the tensions arising from trying to marry the two privacy traditions, or merge data protection and ‘privacy’ law. Yet, these tensions also offer insights and opportunities.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":"72 1","pages":"737 - 769"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000258","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Data protection law has emerged as an important bulwark against online privacy intrusions, and yet its status within privacy law remains awkward. Its starting point of protecting ‘personal’ rather than ‘private’ information puts it at odds with privacy more generally. Indeed, in its very design, data protection law caters for the protection of public personal information, or personal information which has attained a degree of publicness through disclosure. Building on James Whitman's comparative privacy study, this article argues that data protection law is not the odd bedfellow of privacy law properly so called but may be understood as a manifestation of the Continental European culture of privacy. Its distinctiveness does not lie in its apparent technicality but in its robust openness to privacy in public—an idea that is alien to the Anglo-American culture of privacy. Whilst these two cultures of privacy have long ‘met’ in different jurisdictions, this article locates their enduring influence and antagonism within three contemporary privacy regimes. By taking the right to be forgotten, as an archetypal privacy-in-public right, in the testing context of spent criminal convictions, the article gauges the comparative openness to such claims, first, of the Court of Justice of the European Union as the authoritative voice on General Data Protection Regulation normativity; secondly, of the US judiciary as committed to the First and Fourth Amendment; and, thirdly, of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its fused Anglo-American and Continental European privacy jurisprudence. It is the latter jurisprudence in particular that highlights the tensions arising from trying to marry the two privacy traditions, or merge data protection and ‘privacy’ law. Yet, these tensions also offer insights and opportunities.
数据保护法中的被遗忘权与两种西方隐私文化
摘要数据保护法已成为抵御网络隐私侵犯的重要屏障,但其在隐私法中的地位却十分尴尬。它的出发点是保护“个人”而不是“私人”信息,这使它与更普遍的隐私产生了冲突。事实上,数据保护法在其设计上就是为了保护公共个人信息,或通过披露而达到一定程度的公开的个人信息。本文以James Whitman的隐私比较研究为基础,认为数据保护法并不是所谓的隐私法的异类,而是欧洲大陆隐私文化的一种体现。它的独特之处不在于其明显的技术性,而在于其对公共隐私的强烈开放——这与英美隐私文化格格不入。虽然这两种隐私文化在不同的司法管辖区长期“相遇”,但本文将它们的持久影响和对抗置于三个当代隐私制度中。通过将被遗忘权作为一种典型的公共隐私权,在刑事定罪的测试背景下,本文衡量了对此类主张的相对开放性,首先,欧盟法院作为《通用数据保护条例》规范性的权威声音;第二,美国司法机构恪守宪法第一和第四修正案;第三,欧洲人权法院对《欧洲人权公约》第8条及其融合了英美和欧洲大陆隐私法理学的看法。尤其是后者的判例,突显了试图将两种隐私传统结合起来,或将数据保护和“隐私”法合并所产生的紧张关系。然而,这些紧张关系也提供了洞察力和机会。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.
×
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