Timing the Right to Be Forgotten: A Study into “Time” as a Factor in Deciding About Retention or Erasure of Data
- 3.1k Downloads
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.
KeywordsThe right to be forgotten Data protection Privacy Internet Time
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).
- 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
- 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
- Ambrose, M. L., & Ausloos, J. (2013). The Right to be Forgotten Across the Pond. Journal of Information Policy, 3.Google Scholar
- Anderson, M., Eysenck, M.W., Baddeley, A. (2009). Memory, London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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, 1111–1117.Google Scholar
- Camenisch, J., Leenes, R.E. & Sommer, D. (Eds.), Digital Privacy: PRIME – Privacy and Identity Management for Europe. Heidelberg | Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Draft Report (2012). 2012/0011 (COD). Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf.
- DuDai, Y. (2004). Memory from A to Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Gladney, H. M. (2007). Preserving digital information (pp. I-XXIII). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hill, D. G. (2009). Data protection: Governance, risk management, and compliance. CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Koehler, W. (2004). A longitudinal study of Web pages continued: a consideration of document persistence. Information Research, 9(2).Google Scholar
- 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
- MacLean, M., & Davis, B. H. (Eds.). (1998). Time & bits: managing digital continuity. Getty Publications.Google Scholar
- Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Rosen, J. (2010). The web means the end of forgetting. The New York Times, 21.Google Scholar
- Rosen, J. (2012). The right to be forgotten. Stanford law review online, 64, 88.Google Scholar
- Rosenzweig, R. (2011). Clio Wired: The future of the past in the digital age. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Schmidt, E. (2013). New Digital Age, John Murray Publishers. Google Scholar
- 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).
- 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
- 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.
- 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