Advertisement

Timing the Right to Be Forgotten: A Study into “Time” as a Factor in Deciding About Retention or Erasure of Data

  • Paulan KorenhofEmail author
  • Jef Ausloos
  • Ivan Szekely
  • Meg Ambrose
  • Giovanni Sartor
  • Ronald Leenes
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 20)

Abstract

The so-called “Right to Be Forgotten or Erasure” (RTBF), article 17 of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation, provides individuals with a means to oppose the often persistent digital memory of the Web. Because digital information technologies affect the accessibility of information over time and time plays a fundamental role in biological forgetting, ‘time’ is a factor that should play a pivotal role in the RTBF. This chapter explores the roles that ‘time’ plays and could play in decisions regarding the retention or erasure of data. Two roles are identified: (1) ‘time’ as the marker of a discrete moment where the grounds for retention no longer hold and ‘forgetting’ of the data should follow and (2) ‘time’ as a factor in the balance of interests, as adding or removing weight to the request to ‘forget’ personal information or its opposing interest. The chapter elaborates on these two roles from different perspectives and highlights the importance and underdeveloped understanding of the second role.

Keywords

The right to be forgotten Data protection Privacy Internet Time 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper originates from the “Timing the Right to Be Forgotten” panel-discussion at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference (CPDP) in Brussels 201485 organized by the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT). We therefore would like to express our gratitude to TILT and CPDP for supporting and making this discussion possible. Paulan Korenhof her research is conducted within the Privacy and Identity Lab (PI.lab) and funded by SIDN.nl (http://www.sidn.nl).

References

  1. Ambrose, M.L. (2012). It’s about time: Privacy, information lifecycles, and the right to be forgotten. Stanford Technology Law Review, 16, 369–422.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, M.L. (2013). Speaking of Forgetting: Analysis of Possible Non-EU Responses to the Right to be Forgotten and Speech Exception. In TPRC 41: The 41 st Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy.Google Scholar
  3. Ambrose, M. L., & Ausloos, J. (2013). The Right to be Forgotten Across the Pond. Journal of Information Policy, 3.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, M., Eysenck, M.W., Baddeley, A. (2009). Memory, London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Andrade, De, N.N.G. (2012). Oblivion, the right to be different from oneself. Reproposing the right to be forgotten. VII International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Net Neutrality and other challenges for the future of the Internet”, IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 13, 122–137.Google Scholar
  6. Association of French Archivists (2013). The European Parliament: Adjourn the adoption of the regulation about personal data. Retrieved from https://www.change.org/petitions/the-european-parliament-adjourn-the-adoption-of-the-regulation-about-personal-data
  7. Berg, Van den, B. & Leenes, R. (2010). Audience segregation in social network sites. Social Computing (SocialCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing/Second IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust). Minneapolis: IEEE, 11111117.Google Scholar
  8. Camenisch, J., Leenes, R.E. & Sommer, D. (Eds.), Digital Privacy: PRIME – Privacy and Identity Management for Europe. Heidelberg | Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DuDai, Y. (2004). Memory from A to Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar
  11. Edwards L., & E. Harbinja (2013). Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased In A Digital World. Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ, 32, 83–377.Google Scholar
  12. Feeney, M. (Ed.) (1999). The Digital Culture: Maximising the Nation’s Investment (A Synthesis of JISC/NPO Studies on the Preservation of Electronic Materials). London.Google Scholar
  13. GDPR (2012). Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation, COM(2012) 11 final, 25.1.2012. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/dataprotection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf.
  14. Gladney, H. M. (2007). Preserving digital information (pp. I-XXIII). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Gomes, D. & Silva, M. J. (2006). Modelling Information Persistence on the Web, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Engineering. ICWE’06.Google Scholar
  16. Graux, H., Ausloos, J., & Valcke, P. (2012). The Right to Be Forgotten in the Internet Era. The Debate on Privacy and Security over the Network: Regulation and Markets, 93–106.Google Scholar
  17. Hadziselimovic, N., Vukojevic, V., Peter, F., Milnik, A., Fastenrath, M., Fenyves, B. G., … & Stetak, A. (2014). Forgetting Is Regulated via Musashi-Mediated Translational Control of the Arp2/3 Complex. Cell, 156(6), 1153–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harbinja, E. (2013). Does the EU data protection regime protect post-mortem privacy and what could be the potential alternatives? SCRIPTed, Vol. 10, Issue 1. Retrieved from http://script-ed.org/?p=843
  19. Hill, D. G. (2009). Data protection: Governance, risk management, and compliance. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Husovec, M. (2014). ECtHR rules on liability of ISPs as a restriction of freedom of speech. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9(2), 108–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koehler, W. (2004). A longitudinal study of Web pages continued: a consideration of document persistence. Information Research, 9(2).Google Scholar
  22. Korenhof, P. (2014) Forgetting bits and pieces: an exploration of the “right to be forgotten” as implementation of “forgetting” in online memory processes. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology series, volume 0421. Springer.Google Scholar
  23. MacLean, M., & Davis, B. H. (Eds.). (1998). Time & bits: managing digital continuity. Getty Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rosen, J. (2010). The web means the end of forgetting. The New York Times, 21.Google Scholar
  26. Rosen, J. (2012). The right to be forgotten. Stanford law review online, 64, 88.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenzweig, R. (2011). Clio Wired: The future of the past in the digital age. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sartor, G. (2014). The right to be forgotten: dynamics of privacy and publicity. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The protection of information and the right to privacy. Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt, E. (2013). New Digital Age, John Murray Publishers. Google Scholar
  30. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D.M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science 333.6043, 776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sutton, J. (2010). Memory. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/memory/ (last accessed 11 September 2014).
  32. Szekely, I. (2012). The right to forget, the right to be forgotten; Personal reflections on the fate of personal data in the information society. In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, P. De Hert and Y. Poullet (Eds.), European data protection: In good health? (pp. 347–363). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vafopoulos, M. (2012). Being, space, and time on the web. Metaphilosophy 43.4, 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber, R. (2011). The Right to be Forgotten: More than a Pandora’s Box? In 2 JIPITEC 120, 121. Retrieved from http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-2-2-2011/3084/jipitec%202%20-%20a%20-%20weber.pdf.
  35. Wegner, D.M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulan Korenhof
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jef Ausloos
    • 2
  • Ivan Szekely
    • 3
  • Meg Ambrose
    • 4
  • Giovanni Sartor
    • 5
    • 6
  • Ronald Leenes
    • 7
  1. 1.Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT)Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Law (ICRI/CIR-iMinds)University of Leuven (KU Leuven)LeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Open Society ArchivesCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Communication, Culture & Technology DepartmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.Law DepartmentEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  6. 6.Cirsfid, Law DepartmentUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  7. 7.Regulation by Technology, Tilburg Institute for LawTechnology, and Society (TILT)TilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations