The Right to Be Forgotten: The General Report—Congress of the International Society of Comparative Law, Fukuoka, July 2018

Werro, Franz

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33512-0_1

Franz Werro^13,14

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 40))

1038 Accesses

Abstract

The present general report is based on the work of fifteen national rapporteurs. It finds that jurisdictions embrace the right to be forgotten mostly where the right to privacy imposes limits on the right to free expression. Regardless of labels or formal legal recognition, the right to be forgotten takes various forms. In its most traditional form, this right has existed in some parts of Europe for over two centuries. It gives individuals the right to preclude the media from revealing true facts about their private life where no public interest prevails. In today’s world, the right to be forgotten has a more multifaceted meaning. With respect to personal data, this right can involve the right to access, control, and erase these data. The access and the control in turn will depend on various elements, including the roles of data processors, technological devices, competing interests, and the interest of the state. As the world is still assessing the roles of these elements, the right to be forgotten, at least in some of its current manifestations, will gain importance.

The publication of this piece considers materials up until September of 2019.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The questionnaire is an annex to the present report.
2.
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) Mario Costeja González [2014] ECR I-000, at pt. 35 ff, 80 ff, 86 [Hereinafter Google Spain].
3.
A quick look into the bibliography of the national reports will give an idea of the wealth of the research work of their authors and of what is missing in the present report.
4.
We did not receive a United States report, but we analyzed various contributions published in this country. For a recent analysis of the right to be forgotten in the United States’ jurisprudence, see Gajda (2018), p. 201, which interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly claims that the right to be forgotten finds some acceptance in the United States, at least to a larger extent than what has been traditionally acknowledged. See also Post (2018), pp. 1059–61.
5.
See, e.g., Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 8, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 [hereinafter Eur. Conv. on H.R.]; Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 3; Kühling, Germany Report, p. 2; D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 1–2; Șandru, Romania Report, p. 11.
6.
See O’Callaghan, Ireland Report, p. 5.
7.
Jacques, UK Report.
8.
Article 20 of the Turkish Constitution. See Kapanci B, Paksoy S, Turkey Report, p. 2.
9.
Heyman (2008), pp. 7–22.
10.
McLean (2004).
11.
Whitman (2004), p. 1180.
12.
See for example, Brüggemeier et al. (2010), p. 31.
13.
On the effect of fundamental rights in private relations, see Clapham (2006). See also Alston (2005), p. 2. For a recent Swiss perspective, see Müller (2018).
14.
See Werro (2009), pp. 285, 291, 299.
15.
E.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484–85 (1965) (discussing constitutionally-derived “zones of privacy”); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 (1961) (holding that the Fourth Amendment creates a “right to privacy”). Note, though, that the right to privacy is found in the Constitutions of ten states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Washington. National Conf. of State Legislatures, Privacy Protections in State Constitutions (May 5, 2017), http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx.
16.
See Werro (2009), pp. 296, 300.
17.
Warren and Brandeis (1890), pp. 193–220.
18.
For a discussion of the convergence of EU and US privacy regulations, and more specifically the recent California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA, June 2019), see Büyüksagis (2019).
19.
For a detailed account, see Page (2010), p. 38.
20.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21.
21.
In relevant part, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” 213 U.N.T.S 221.
22.
Seevon Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21at ¶ ¶18–42.
23.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21 at ¶ 50 (citations omitted).
24.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21 at ¶ 50 (citations omitted).
25.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21 at ¶ 50 (citations omitted).
26.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21 at ¶ 58.
27.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21 at ¶ 65 (citation omitted).
28.
For a further discussion of these positive duties from a Swiss law perspective, see Müller (2018).
29.
The von Hannover case was deliberately styled as a grievance against the Federal Republic of Germany. Per Articles 32, 34 of the Convention, individual applicants may only petition the European Court of Human Rights for grievances they claim to have suffered at the hands of a Party to the Convention (i.e. States). Applicants to the European Court of Human Rights may not style their claims in the form of private grievances against another individual. See Eur. Conv. on H.R., 213 U.N.T.S 221, art. 34. Thus, although the Hannover case was presented as a claim against the Federal Republic of Germany, the decision carries direct implications for private entitlements for all Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights.
30.
Șandru, Romania Report, p. 10.
31.
For a contrary view as to the divisibility of the right to be forgotten, see Post (2018), pp. 993–994, who argues that the traditional individual right to be forgotten protecting dignitary privacy is distinguishable from the RTBF, “the distinct bureaucratic version of the right to be forgotten created by the Directive to protect data privacy… .”
32.
See D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report at 2; O’Callaghan, Ireland Report, p. 9 (indicating that Article 17 of the GDPR improves adds to data protection currently afforded by national law by making data subjects’ consent the touchstone of the data’s use); Kühling, Germany Report, p. 7; Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, pp. 12–13.
33.
Kapanci B, Paksoy S, Turkey Report, p. 2.
34.
443 U.S. 308 (1977).
35.
Werro (2009), p. 295.
36.
Werro (2009), p. 296.
37.
Von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21 ¶ 76.
38.
See Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, p. 3; Gonçalves R, Brazil Report, pp. 4–10.
39.
Gonçalves R, Brazil Report, p. 8.
40.
See Gonçalves R, Brazil Report, p. 5. The Brazilian high court seems to have implied that information erasure requests are more actionable in mass media cases than in internet de-indexation requests.
41.
Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, p. 3.
42.
Organization of American States, Am. Conv. on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.
43.
See Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, p. 3.
44.
See Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, p. 7 (noting “the differences between the European framework for the protection of personal data and the strong emphasis on the right to freedom of expression in the Inter-American system.”).
45.
See Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, pp. 5–7.
46.
Yamaguchi, Japan Report, p. 7.
47.
Yamaguchi, Japan Report, p. 7.
48.
Yamaguchi, Japan Report, p. 8.
49.
Yamaguchi, Japan Report, p. 8.
50.
Chiou, Taiwan Report, p. 5.
51.
Chiou, Taiwan Report, p. 4.
52.
Chiou, Taiwan Report, p. 4.
53.
Chiou, Taiwan Report, p. 4.
54.
Chiou, Taiwan Report, p. 4.
55.
See Gajda (2018), pp. 203–204. Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, pp. 2–3 (“La seconde sous-catégorie du « droit à l’oubli » est une expression du droit à la vie privée…D’abord utilisé dans le cadre de la presse traditionnelle, il connaît de nouveaux développements à l’aire des archives numériques au travers du droit à l’anonymisation.”).
56.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 2.
57.
For Swiss law, see Werro (2009).
58.
See, e.g., ML and WW v. Germany, Nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10 (Eur. Ct. HR. 2018) (upholding German constitutional court’s decision to quash application by two convicted murderers for the anonymization of stories concerning their conviction, finding, under the Axel Springer criteria, that Article 10 rights outweighed Article 8 rights in this case; Satakunnan Markinaporssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, Application no. 931/13, (Eur. Ct. HR. Jun. 27, 2017) (upholding Finish court’s decision to enjoin the dissemination of tax information (lawfully received and published) via sms message); Furst-Pfeifer v. Austria, Application nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10 (Eur. Ct. HR May 17, 2017) (upholding 4-3 the Austrian courts’ judgment that Article 8 was not infringed by the publication of truthful medical information about a registered psychological expert for court proceedings in custody and contact-rights-related disputes on public care and child abuse); Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No. 39954/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012) (striking down 12-5, following the application of a 6-part balancing test, as a violation of Article 10, German courts’ decision to fine and enjoin German media companies from publishing the details of a prominent television actor’s arrest for cocaine possession).
Post (2018), pp. 1058–1059.
59.
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, 2014 E.C.R. 317.
60.
For more details, see Werro (2009); for suggestions as to how to accommodate the European right to be forgotten in the US environment, see Bennett (2012), p. 161.
61.
Post (2018), pp. 1059–1061.
62.
Post (2018), p. 1010.
63.
The Directive itself mentions the protection of these values. It will not grant the right to erasure that could come into conflict with a public interest. Gratuitous harmful information is not protected. Art. 94 GDPR is a repeal of 95/46/EC.
64.
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, 2014 E.C.R. 317 pt. 35, 80, 86.
65.
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, 2014 E.C.R. 317 pt. 17.
66.
For a recent in-depth account on the cultural dimension of privacy, see Legrand (2017), p. 1 (involving a comparison between the work of James Gordley and that of James Whitman). For another fundamental analysis, see also, Mayer-Schönberger (2009), pp. 16–49, analyzing the importance of forgetting.
67.
Consider, for example, that in 1985, the Italian Supreme Court established that the right to a personal identity constituted an interest in ensuring against that identity’s improper altering or prejudice. As the rapporteur explains, in a 2004 case, Italy’s data protection authority ordered the de-indexing of prejudicial search links—years before the Google Spain case. See D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 2.
68.
According to Post (2018), p. 1060.
69.
Ibid.
70.
See Shulman v. Grp. W. Prods., Inc., 955 P.2d 469, 485 (Cal. 1998); Bollea v. Gawker, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
71.
See, e.g., ML and WW v. Germany, App. Nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10 (Eur. Ct. HR. 2018); Satakunnan Markinaporssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, App. no. 931/13, (Eur. Ct. HR. Jun. 27, 2017); Furst-Pfeifer v. Austria, App. nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10 (Eur. Ct. HR May 17, 2017); Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No. 39954/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012).
72.
Post (2018), pp. 1058–1059.
73.
See Art. 28 CC.
74.
See Stein (2010). See also Cohen (2017b), p. 56, who analyzes the unquestioning deference to the political power of money in free speech jurisprudence.
75.
Whitman (2004), pp. 1151, 1171–1188, with interesting insights into the specificities of German and French capitalism.
76.
On constitutionalization, see Brüggemeier et al. (2010), p. 31. See Art. 13 of the Swiss federal constitution, and its express reference to the “respect de la vie privée.”
77.
See, e.g., Werro (2009), pp. 290–291.
78.
This appears to be true also outside the EU; see Berk Kapanci, Sermin Paksoy, Turkey Report, pp. 2, 6.
79.
Directive 95/46/EC Art. 12, 14.
80.
Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 2. In 1997, Belgium’s Privacy Commission formally recommended the anonymization of personal details in judicial decisions.
81.
See Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 11. Nevertheless, the rapporteur notes that the Belgian reaction to the ECJ’s formal declaration of the right to be forgotten was one of surprise.
82.
Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 11.
83.
Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 11.
84.
Kühling, Germany Report, p. 2.
85.
Note that although we recognize a practical difference between the right to be forgotten and the right to privacy, we do not wish to assert that the right to be forgotten represents a self-substantiating right independent of the right to privacy. We maintain that the right to be forgotten is a derivative of the right to privacy. For a parallel discussion arguing against the recognition of data protection as its own right, see Poscher (2017), p. 129.
86.
Kühling, Germany Report, pp. 1–2.
87.
Directive 95/46/EC.
88.
Kühling, Germany Report, p. 1.
89.
O’Callaghan, Ireland Report, p. 8.
90.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 1.
91.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 1.
92.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 2.
93.
Kapanci B, Paksoy S, Turkey Report, p. 2.
94.
Kapanci B, Paksoy S, Turkey Report, p. 6.
95.
See Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, p. 1, 4.
96.
See, e.g., Bhardwaj (Feb. 28, 2018, 12:06 PM), http://www.businessinsider.com/google-right-to-be-forgotten-law-in-america-2018-2;see generally Gajda (2018), p. 93; Post (2018), p. 67.
97.
See Jacques, United Kingdom Report, p. 12.
98.
See Jacques, United Kingdom Report, p. 11.
99.
Jacques, United Kingdom Report, p. 1.
100.
Jacques, United Kingdom Report, p. 1.
101.
Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 3.
102.
Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 4.
103.
Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p 4. Note that Oullet c. Pigeon was heard in 1997 — prior to the von Hannover case. But compare with the Court’s reasoning in Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No. 39954/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012).
104.
See Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 6.
105.
De Visser, Singapore Draft Report, p. 6. (on file with the author of the general report).
106.
De Visser, Singapore Draft Report, p. 2.
107.
De Visser, Singapore Draft Report, p. 4.
108.
De Visser, Singapore Draft Report, pp. 5–6.
109.
De Visser, Singapore Draft Report, p. 9.
110.
De Visser, Singapore Draft Report, p. 9.
111.
Whitman (2004), p. 1161 (referencing German literature).
112.
As EU law shows, a right to be forgotten cannot trump the public interest in receiving information that contains historic value. On this question, amongst others, see Vivian Reding, as cited in Post, in footnote 314; for a critique of the way the CJEU handled the question, see Post (2018), p. 1051.
113.
Whitman (2004), pp. 1186, 1210.
114.
See Cohen (2017), pp. 230–231.
115.
See Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p 3; see generally Gajda (2018).
116.
Art. 17 GDPR (“ Right to Erasure”).
117.
Cf. Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 2 (“L’article 8 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne a même fait du droit à la protection des données à caractère personnel un droit autonome, toute personne ayant, selon l’article 8, paragraphe 2 de la Charte, « le droit d’accéder aux données collectées la concernant et d’en obtenir la rectification »”); D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 6 (right to contextualize); for a convincing comparison between the European and the American approaches with respect to control over oneself, see Whitman (2004), p. 1161, n. 44, 1169, n. 76, 1182, nn. 127-29.
118.
Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 1.
119.
See Post (2018), p. 985.
120.
Post (2018), p. 985.
121.
See Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, pp. 4–5 (discussion of habeas data).
122.
Kapanci B, Paksoy S, Turkey Report, p. 1 (“Personal data which are processed in accordance with this law or relevant other laws shall be deleted, destroyed or anonymized either ex officio or upon request” with the right to be forgotten receiving constitutional backing recognized by the Constitutional Court in 2016).
123.
Gonçalves R, Brazil Report, p. 3 (Law No. 12965 of April 23, 2014).
124.
Chiou, Taiwan Report, p 1 (conventional right to request deletion of personal data stated in Personal Information Protection Act at article 11).
125.
See D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 6 (right to contextualize); Motzfeldt, Naesborg-Andersen, Denmark Report at 3 (data must be up to date).
126.
See Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 13 May 2014, Google Spain and Google, C-131/12, EU:C:2014:317; Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 5 (“Par contre, lorsqu’il est démontré que le propos contrevient à une loi ou viole un droit fondamental, les tribunaux canadiens n’ont aucune hésitation à ordonner le déréférencement.”); Motzfeldt, Naesborg-Andersen, Denmark Report, p. 2 (Processing of Personal Data Act of 2000 allowing right to demand in a reduction in searchability); Yamaguchi, Japan Report at 12 (Nov. 6, 2009 Tokyo Dist. Ct. case requiring Google to delist 122 URLs because they infringed on the right to personality of the petitioner).
127.
Alén-Savikko, Finland Report, p. 5.
128.
Council Regulation 2016/679, art. 17, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU) [hereinafter GDPR].
129.
GDPR, art. 16.
130.
GDPR, art. 17(1).
131.
See GDPR, art. 17(1)(a).
132.
GDPR, art. 16.
133.
See Wildemeersch, Belgium Report, p. 1, stating that the right to be forgotten “regroupe en réalité plusieurs droits qui reposent sur des fondements législatifs différents.”
134.
G.A. Res. 68/167 at 2 (Dec. 18, 2013).
135.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
136.
See Peters (2017), pp. 145, 149.
137.
See generally Peters (2017), pp. 145, 149.
138.
For a recent critique of consent in the digital environment, see Richards and Hartzog (2019), p. 96.
139.
See also OECD Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data ¶ 10 (“Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with Paragraph 9 except: a) with the consent of the data subject… .”).
140.
A deeper analysis on the extent to which the ICCPR and similar international instruments have affected conceptions of the right to be forgotten falls beyond the scope of this report, which is styled as a survey of the current status of the right to be forgotten.
141.
Whitman (2004), pp. 1193–1194 makes an interesting point when he remarks that “consumers need more than cheap goods and services, just as they need more than easy credit. They need dignity. If your consumer profile is floating around somewhere in cyberspace, you are not in control of your image… . This sort of thinking has far less resonance in America than it does in Germany and France.” But, of course, this is because we have so much less of the continental sense that “a just world [] is a world in which everybody’s respectability is carefully protected.”
142.
See Hurdík, Czech Republic Report, p 4; the Alén-Savikko, Finland Report, p. 5, explains that individuals may prohibit processing of their personal data “for purposes of direct advertising, distance selling, other direct marketing, market research, opinion polls, public registers or genealogical research,” See also Kühling, Germany Report at 13; Jacques, United Kingdom Report, pp. 7–8.
143.
Kühling, Germany Report, p. 13.
144.
Yet note that it is not clear under Taiwanese law that withdrawal of consent guarantees a right to erasure of personal data—the law merely requires that the data processor cease processing the data. See Chiou, Taiwan Report, p. 1 (discussing Article 11 of the Personal Information Protection Act).
145.
Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, pp. 1, 4.
146.
See Hern (Apr. 19, 2018, 7:03 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law?CMP=share_btn_link.
147.
Bertram et al. (2018), p. 17, available at: https://www.elie.net/static/files/three-years-of-the-right-to-be-forgotten/three-years-of-the-right-to-be-forgotten-paper.pdf.
148.
For example: google.fr, google.es, google.it, etc.
149.
In other words, to include websites such as google.es, google.it, or even the U.S. google.com.
150.
The case was lodged before the European Court of Justice after the French Data Protection Authority ordered Google to comply with universal delisting of certain URLs. See Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 21 August 2017—Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), Case C-507/17. Question referred number 1: “Must the ‘right to de-referencing’, as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 13 May 2014 on the basis of the provisions of Articles 12(b) and 14(a) of Directive [95/46/EC] of 24 October 1995, be interpreted as meaning that a search engine operator is required, when granting a request for de-referencing, to deploy the de-referencing to all of the domain names used by its search engine so that the links at issue no longer appear, irrespective of the place from where the search initiated on the basis of the requester’s name is conducted, and even if it is conducted from a place outside the territorial scope of Directive [95/46/EC] of 24 October 1995?”
151.
See Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) Case C-507/17. At this late stage, the author regrettably cannot address the outcome of this case. The decision was rendered after the manuscript was submitted to the publisher, and the author regrets the outcome of the case, but has no space to fully comment on it further. For a similar view, see Marc Rotenberg, Google’s Position Makes no Sense: Opposing view, at https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/22/. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=D3B6FA325F40E19000A709ED4DF087BB?text=&docid=218105&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3535949.
152.
Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 18.
153.
Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, pp. 18–19.
154.
Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 19.
155.
See Chiou, Taiwan Report, pp. 2–3.
156.
Note, although Google does admittedly publish transparency reports with respect to its de-indexation requests, it is the Authors’ opinion and that of many of the rapporteurs that more work to increase transparency may be done. See, e.g., Alén-Savikko, Finland Report, p. 16; O’Callaghan, Ireland Report, p. 16; Kapanci B, Paksoy S, Turkey Report, p. 9 (calling for transparency at the level of individual applications).
157.
Notice and take down is defined as a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. Under U.S. and European law, this process finds its rules in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000.
158.
Marcelo Lopez Alfonsín, Argentina Report, pp. 3–4.
159.
Post (2018), p. 1067. The Canadian rapporteur also expresses some doubt as to allowing private third parties this role, see Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 11.
160.
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, 2014 EUR-Lex Celex No. 62012CJ0131 (May 13, 2014), Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, Celex No. 612CC0131 at ¶ ¶ 133–34 (June 25, 2013).
161.
Case C-398/15 Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni ¶ 24 (March 9, 2017).
162.
For a comparison of the two cases, see Büyüksagis (2019), pp. 28–33.
163.
Manni. ¶ 64.
164.
Id.
165.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 11.
166.
[2018] EWHC 799 (QB).
167.
Browning and Sebag (Apr. 13, 2018, 9:49 AM), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-13/google-told-to-remove-links-to-businessman-s-criminal-conviction-jfy0dqv4.
168.
Warren (May 16, 2018), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/tiziana-cantone-suicide-right-to-be-forgotten/559289/.
169.
See, e.g., Alfonsín ML, Argentina Report, p. 2 (“Internet intermediaries become liable only upon obtaining ‘effective knowledge’ of the illegal content involving the notification by a court or other competent authority… .”); Gonçalves R, Brazil Report, p 8 (discussing Google’s liability in the Xuxa case); Eltis, Trudel, Canada Report, p. 7 (“Selon les six juges majoritaires de la Cour, une personne ne peut en diffamer une autre simplement en publiant un hyperlien menant au site Web ou à un document d’un tiers qui contient des propos diffamatoires… .”); D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p 3 (noting differing approaches to intermediaries’ liability prior to the Google Spain decision); Chiou, Taiwan Report, p 4 (“Court decisions that uphold ISP’s obligation to remove contents…are limited situations where the ISP knows that the contents or search results may infringe upon reputations of others or fails to know that as a result of gross negligence.”).
170.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 3.
171.
D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p. 3.
172.
Yamaguchi, Japan Report, p. 3.
173.
German Report, p. 2 (noting that the issue is unsettled at the national level); D’Antonio, Pollicino, Italy Report, p 3 (discussing conflicting case law on the subject prior to the Google Spain decision).
174.
Yamaguchi, Japan Report, p. 20.
175.
In that respect, liability for damages should be limited.
176.
Rosenberg et al. (March 17, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html.
177.
McMillan (Mar. 26, 2018, 7:31 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histories-for-some-android-users-1522072657.
178.
Salinas (Mar. 26, 2018), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/ftc-confirms-facebook-data-breach-investigation.html.
179.
Watson (Apr. 11, 2018 12:00 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments.
180.
Facebook retains a great amount of data about its users that a standard consumer would not expect. That data includes users’ phonebook contacts, a list of users’ removed friends, and even the number of advertisers with users’ personal information. See Chen (Apr. 11, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/technology/personaltech/i-downloaded-the-information-that-facebook-has-on-me-yikes.html?mtrref=undefined.

References

Case Law

Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No. 39954/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012)
Google Scholar
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, 2014 E.C.R. 317
Google Scholar
Case C-398/15 Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni, 2017 E.C.J
Google Scholar
Furst-Pfeifer v. Austria, Application nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10 (Eur. Ct. HR May 17, 2017)
Google Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484–85 (1965)
Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 (1961)
Google Scholar
ML and WW v. Germany, Nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10 (Eur. Ct. HR. 2018)
Google Scholar
Satakunnan Markinaporssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, Application no. 931/13, (Eur. Ct. HR. Jun. 27, 2017)
Google Scholar
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company, 443 U.S. 308 (1977)
Google Scholar
von Hannover v. Germany (59320/00), [2004] E.M.L.R. 21
Google Scholar

Literature

Alston P (2005) Non-state actors and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 2
Google Scholar
Bennett SC (2012) The “Right to be Forgotten”: reconciling EU and US perspectives. Berkeley J Int Law 30(1):161
Google Scholar
Bertram T et al (2018) Three years of the right to be forgotten. Google, Inc, Menlo Park, p 17, Available at: https://www.elie.net/static/files/three-years-of-the-right-to-be-forgotten/three-years-of-the-right-to-be-forgotten-paper.pdf
Google Scholar
Bhardwaj P (Feb 28, 2018, 12:06 PM) Millions of Europeans are asking Google to be “forgotten” — here’s why Americans don’t have that option, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/google-right-to-be-forgotten-law-in-america-2018-2
Browning J, Sebag G (Apr 13, 2018, 9:49 AM) Google has to hit delete after right to be forgotten turns to crime, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-13/google-told-to-remove-links-to-businessman-s-criminal-conviction-jfy0dqv4
Brüggemeier G, Ciacchi AC, O’Callaghan P (eds) (2010) Personality rights in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 31
Google Scholar
Büyüksagis E (2019) Towards a transatlantic concept of data privacy. Fordham Law Rev
Google Scholar
Chen BX (Apr 11, 2018) I Downloaded the information that Facebook has on me. Yikes., N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/technology/personaltech/i-downloaded-the-information-that-facebook-has-on-me-yikes.html?mtrref=undefined
Clapham A (2006) Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Cohen J (2017a) The biopolitical public domain: the legal construction of the surveillance economy. Philos Technol 31:230–231
Google Scholar
Cohen JE (2017b) The Zombie first amendment. William & Mary Law Rev 56:119
Google Scholar
Gajda A (2018) Privacy, press, and the right to be forgotten in the United States. Wash Law Rev 93:201
Google Scholar
Hern A (Apr 19, 2018, 7:03 AM) Facebook moves 1.5bn users out of reach of new European privacy law, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law?CMP=share_btn_link
Heyman SJ (2008) Free speech and the natural rights tradition. In free speech and human dignity. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 7–22
Google Scholar
Legrand P (2017) Jameses at play: a tractation on the comparison of laws. Am J Comp Law 65(1):1
Article Google Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger V (2009) Delete: the virtue of forgetting in a digital age. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 16–49
Google Scholar
McLean I (2004) Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the Déclaration des Droits de L’Homme et du Citoyen. In: Fatton R, Ramazani RK (eds) The future of Liberal Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Google Scholar
McMillan R (Mar 26, 2018, 7:31 PM) Facebook logs text, Call histories for some android users, Wall St. J., https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histories-for-some-android-users-1522072657
Müller JP (2018) Verwirklichung der Grundrechte nach Art. 35 BV. Berne
Google Scholar
National Conf. of State Legislatures, Privacy Protections in State Constitutions (May 5, 2017) http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx
Page JA (2010) In: Brüggemeier G, Ciacchi AC, O’Callaghan P (eds) Personality rights in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 38
Chapter Google Scholar
Peters A (2017) Privacy, Rechtsstaatlichkeit, and the legal limits on extraterritorial surveillance. In: Miller RA (ed) Privacy and power a transatlantic dialogue in the shadow of the NSA-Affair. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 145, 149
Google Scholar
Poscher R (2017) The right to data protection a no-right thesis. In: Miller RA (ed) Privacy and power a transatlantic dialogue in the shadow of the NSA-affair. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 129
Chapter Google Scholar
Post RC (2018) Data privacy and dignitary privacy: Google Spain, the right to be forgotten, and the construction of the public sphere. Duke Law J 67:1059–1061
Google Scholar
Richards N, Hartzog W (2019) The pathologies of digital consent. Wash Law Rev:96
Google Scholar
Rosenberg M et al (Mar 17, 2018) How Trump consultants exploited the Facebook data of millions, N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html
Rotenberg M, Google’s position makes no sense: opposing view, at https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/22/
Salinas S (Mar 26, 2018) Facebook stock slides after FTC launches probe of data scandal, CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/ftc-confirms-facebook-data-breach-investigation.html
Stein L (2010) Speech right in America. University of Illinois, Chicago
Google Scholar
Warren R (May 16, 2018) A Mother wants the Internet to Forget Italy’s most viral sex tape, The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/tiziana-cantone-suicide-right-to-be-forgotten/559289/
Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev 4:193–220
Article Google Scholar
Watson C (Apr 11, 2018 12:00 AM) The key moments from mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments
Werro F (2009) The right to inform v. the right to be forgotten: a transatlantic clash. In: Ciacchi AC et al (eds) Haftungsrecht im dritten Millenium - Liability in the Third Millennium. Bremen. Nomos Publishing, Baden-Baden, p 285, 291, 299
Google Scholar
Whitman JQ (2004) The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J. 113:1180
Article Google Scholar

Conventions/Statutes

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 8, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171
Google Scholar
OECD Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data ¶ 10
Google Scholar
Organization of American States, Am. Conv. on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123
Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Ephraim David Abreu (JD Georgetown Law ‘19) for his major contribution to an early version of the report without which the current one would not exist. I also wish to thank Sibilla Grenon (JD Georgetown Law ‘21) for her thoughtful work on later drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Fribourg University, Fribourg, Switzerland
Franz Werro
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA
Franz Werro

Authors

Franz Werro
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franz Werro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA
Franz Werro

The Right to Be Forgotten: Questionnaire

Question 1

Comment votre droit protège-t-il le droit à l’oubli ? Le droit à l’oubli est-il consacré de manière spécifique dans une loi ou découle-t-il de dispositions générales ?

How is the right to be forgotten protected under your law? Does your law specifically grant a right to be forgotten or does this right derive from a more general framework?

Question 2

Quelles sont les limites au droit à l’oubli selon votre droit ?

What are the limits to the right to be forgotten under your law?

Question 3

Quels sont, dans votre droit, les moyens de droit pour mettre en œuvre son droit à l’oubli ?

What are, in your law, the legal remedies available to enforce the right to be forgotten?

Question 4

Dans le prolongement de la question précédente, est-ce que votre droit permet à une personne qui s’estime lésée par une information sur internet d’obtenir une réparation de son dommage ou de son tort moral ? Si oui, est-ce que la mise en œuvre d’une telle action en responsabilité est réalisable en pratique ?

As a follow-up to the previous question, does your law allow the plaintiff to receive material or immaterial damages? If yes, is such remedy realistic in practice?

Question 5

De manière générale, comment évaluez-vous la mise en œuvre du droit à l’oubli dans votre droit ? Est-elle efficace ? Le droit à l’oubli est-il souvent utilisé en pratique ? Existe-t-il des obstacles particuliers à sa mise en œuvre ?

In general, how do you assess the implementation of the right to be forgotten in your law? Is it effective? Is it used in practice? Are there particular obstacles in the implementation of this right?

Question 6

Comment les tribunaux et les auteurs de doctrine ont-ils accueilli la décision Google c. González de la CJUE dans votre État ?

How did courts and commentators in your country welcome the ECJ ruling on Google v González?

Question 7

Pour les ressortissants d’un État qui ne fait pas partie de l’Union européenne, est-ce que les tribunaux de votre État ont suivi la décision de la CJUE ? Pensez-vous qu’ils vont le faire ?

For those who are from a country that is not part of the European Union, did your courts follow the ECJ ruling on the right to be forgotten? Is it likely Do that they will follow it?

Question 8

Est-ce que votre droit accordait déjà un droit à l’oubli sur internet similaire à celui consacré par la CJUE ?

Did your law already grant a similar right to be forgotten than the one stated in the ECJ ruling?

Question 9

Pour mettre en œuvre la décision de la CJUE, Google a mis en place un formulaire permettant à toute personne intéressée de déposer une requête pour déréférencer une information qui la concerne. Sur la base de cette demande, Google doit faire une pesée des intérêts entre l’intérêt privé de la personne à déréférencer son information et l’intérêt public à ce que l’information soit publique. Google ne rend toutefois pas publique la manière dont il traite les requêtes de déréférencement. En particulier, Google n’informe pas le public du nombre de demandes qu’il reçoit, du type de demande, du cercle des personnes concernées, du nombre d’acceptation et de refus et des raisons des refus. Pensez-vous que Google doive améliorer la transparence dans la mise en œuvre du droit à l’oubli ?

To implement the ECJ ruling, Google has created a form in which anyone interested can submit a request to have information about him-or herself be delisted. Based on this request, Google will weigh between the private interest of the petitioner and the public interest to be informed. Google does not disclose the ways in which it deals with requests. In particular, Google does fully not disclose, the category of requests that are excluded or accepted, the proportion of requests and successful de-listings and, among others, the reason for the denial of delisting. Do you think that Google should be more transparent about the ways it uses to implement the right to be forgotten?

Question 10

Est-ce que les citoyens de votre État font usage du formulaire de Google pour mettre en œuvre le droit à l’oubli sur internet ?

Is the procedure prepared by Google used in your country?

Question 11

Des réformes sont-elles prévues au niveau législatif pour renforcer ou modifier la protection du droit à l’oubli dans votre droit ?

Is there any upcoming legal reform in your country whose purpose is to reinforce or modify the right to be forgotten?

Question 12

Quelle devrait être à votre avis la prochaine étape dans la protection du droit à l’oubli ? Pensez-vous que les États devraient protéger davantage la personnalité des utilisateurs sur internet ? Pensez-vous que l’Union européenne devrait modifier ou adapter ses normes qui protègent le droit à l’oubli ?

In your opinion, what should be the next step in the protection of the right to be forgotten? Do you think that one must go further and strengthen the right to be forgotten? Do you think that the European Union should modify or adapt its legislation on the right to be forgotten?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Werro, F. (2020). The Right to Be Forgotten: The General Report—Congress of the International Society of Comparative Law, Fukuoka, July 2018. In: Werro, F. (eds) The Right To Be Forgotten. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33512-0_1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33512-0_1
Published: 07 March 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33511-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33512-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

The Right to Be Forgotten: The General Report—Congress of the International Society of Comparative Law, Fukuoka, July 2018

Abstract

Access this chapter

Notes

References

Case Law

Literature

Conventions/Statutes

Acknowledgements

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

The Right to Be Forgotten: Questionnaire

The Right to Be Forgotten: Questionnaire

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

Question 11

Question 12

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation