The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – Worth remembering?
Introduction
The Internet doesn’t forget.
Personal data has become the currency on the Internet. It is collected, stored and used in an ever-increasing variety of ways by a countless amount of different users, producing a “panopticon beyond anything Bentham ever imagined”.1 Cheap sensors,2 have made ‘little big brothers’ out of all of us,3 producing a complex interaction between our different roles as data controller and data subject. In this ‘global village’4 where every piece of information can be remembered until eternity, the question of control over one’s ‘personal data’ becomes the more important. The idea of a ‘right to be forgotten’ – currently being pondered by the European Commission5 – has been pushed forward as an important materialisation of this ‘control-right’. Although many cases6 seem to validate the introduction of this right, when thought through, there are many difficulties and conflicting values at stake. After a critical evaluation of its pros and cons, this article will examine the practicability of a ‘right to be forgotten’ following Lessig’s four principal ‘regulators’ (norms, market, code and law).
Section snippets
Definition
The right of individuals to have their data no longer processed and deleted when they are no longer needed for legitimate purposes.7
Norms
The ‘right to be forgotten’ is a mere crystallisation of the more fundamental wish for ‘control’ over one’s personal data. Although norms with regard to protecting privacy vary among different countries and regions,53
Balanced approach
The first chapter of this article gave a concise overview of the current debate on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Whereas the right seems to give back control to individuals and constitutes some sort of ‘check’ on the data controller’s behaviour, it became clear that the right has some important drawbacks as well. In its original form, the ‘right to be forgotten’ only comes ex post, conflicts with free speech (enabling subtle censorship), is very hard to effectively implement in practice and only
Jef Ausloos ([email protected]), Legal Researcher Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI-IBBT) KU Leuven.
References (0)
Cited by (77)
Anonymization as homeomorphic data space transformation for privacy-preserving deep learning
2021, Procedia Computer ScienceShall the robots remember? Conceptualising the role of non-human agents in digital memory communication
2024, Memory, Mind and MediaThe United Nation data governance: a panopticon and a catalyst for cooperation
2023, Brazilian Journal of International LawUnpleasant Memories on the Web in Employment Relations: A Ricoeurian Approach
2022, Humanistic Management JournalPromoting Ethical Awareness in Communication Analysis: Investigating Potentials and Limits of Visual Analytics for Intelligence Applications
2022, ACM International Conference Proceeding SeriesEditorial: Five challenges in detection and mitigation of disinformation on social media
2022, Online Information Review
Jef Ausloos ([email protected]), Legal Researcher Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI-IBBT) KU Leuven.