Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Aurelia Tamò, Damian George, Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age, 5 (2014) JIPITEC 71 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age %A Tamò, Aurelia %A George, Damian %J JIPITEC %D 2014 %V 5 %N 2 %@ 2190-3387 %F tamò2014 %X In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking. %L 340 %K EU data protection directive %K Right to be forgotten %K autocomplete suggestions %K data protection %K data protection reform, data protection %K defamation %K notice and take down %K oblivion, erasure %K privacy %K regulation, ECJ C-131/12 Google v. Spain %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974 %P 71-87Download
Bibtex
@Article{tamò2014, author = "Tam{\`o}, Aurelia and George, Damian", title = "Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age", journal = "JIPITEC", year = "2014", volume = "5", number = "2", pages = "71--87", keywords = "EU data protection directive; Right to be forgotten; autocomplete suggestions; data protection; data protection reform, data protection; defamation; notice and take down; oblivion, erasure; privacy; regulation, ECJ C-131/12 Google v. Spain", abstract = "In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the ``right to be forgotten'' has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently -- in light of the European Parliament's approval of the LIBE Committee'samendments onMarch 14, 2014 -- the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a``right of erasure''. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking.", issn = "2190-3387", url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974" }Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Tamò, Aurelia AU - George, Damian PY - 2014 DA - 2014// TI - Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age JO - JIPITEC SP - 71 EP - 87 VL - 5 IS - 2 KW - EU data protection directive KW - Right to be forgotten KW - autocomplete suggestions KW - data protection KW - data protection reform, data protection KW - defamation KW - notice and take down KW - oblivion, erasure KW - privacy KW - regulation, ECJ C-131/12 Google v. Spain AB - In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974 ID - tamò2014 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>tamò2014</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2014</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>5</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974</b:Url> <b:Pages>71-87</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Tamò</b:Last><b:First>Aurelia</b:First></b:Person> <b:Person><b:Last>George</b:Last><b:First>Damian</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age</b:Title> <b:Comments>In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Tamò, A George, D TI Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age SO JIPITEC PY 2014 BP 71 EP 87 VL 5 IS 2 DE EU data protection directive; Right to be forgotten; autocomplete suggestions; data protection; data protection reform, data protection; defamation; notice and take down; oblivion, erasure; privacy; regulation, ECJ C-131/12 Google v. Spain AB In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking. ERDownload
Mods
<mods> <titleInfo> <title>Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age</title> </titleInfo> <name type="personal"> <namePart type="family">Tamò</namePart> <namePart type="given">Aurelia</namePart> </name> <name type="personal"> <namePart type="family">George</namePart> <namePart type="given">Damian</namePart> </name> <abstract>In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking.</abstract> <subject> <topic>EU data protection directive</topic> <topic>Right to be forgotten</topic> <topic>autocomplete suggestions</topic> <topic>data protection</topic> <topic>data protection reform, data protection</topic> <topic>defamation</topic> <topic>notice and take down</topic> <topic>oblivion, erasure</topic> <topic>privacy</topic> <topic>regulation, ECJ C-131/12 Google v. Spain</topic> </subject> <classification authority="ddc">340</classification> <relatedItem type="host"> <genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre> <genre>academic journal</genre> <titleInfo> <title>JIPITEC</title> </titleInfo> <part> <detail type="volume"> <number>5</number> </detail> <detail type="issue"> <number>2</number> </detail> <date>2014</date> <extent unit="page"> <start>71</start> <end>87</end> </extent> </part> </relatedItem> <identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier> <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974</identifier> <identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974</identifier> <identifier type="citekey">tamò2014</identifier> </mods>Download
Full Metadata
Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 5 (2014) 2 |
---|---|
Title |
Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age (eng) |
Author | Aurelia Tamò, Damian George |
Language | eng |
Abstract | In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking. |
Subject | EU data protection directive, Right to be forgotten, autocomplete suggestions, data protection, data protection reform, data protection, defamation, notice and take down, oblivion, erasure, privacy, regulation, ECJ C-131/12 Google v. Spain |
DDC | 340 |
Rights | DPPL |
URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-39974 |