THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN: AN EVOLVING RIGHT BY - DR. TANVEER KAUR
THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN: AN
EVOLVING RIGHT
AUTHORED BY - DR. TANVEER KAUR
Assistant Professor, School of Law, UPES.
Abstract
The
Right to be forgotten (RTBF) is a key legal principle in digital privacy and
data protection. It balances individual rights with public interests. This paper
explores the evolution of the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF), focusing on the
landmark Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos ruling. It
examines how this right affects privacy, free speech, and public interest in
the EU and abroad. Case studies and comparative analysis show the difficulties
of implementing the RTBF in different legal systems, underlining the need for
harmonization and clear instructions. This chapter recommends a balanced RTBF
that adjusts to technology while protecting individual rights.
Keywords: Right to be Forgotten (RTF), Court of
Justice of the European Union (CJEU), data protection, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union (EU) freedom of expression, public interest, legal
frameworks, implementation challenges.
Introduction
Digital
information makes Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) important since personal data is
easily accessible and spread online. Under certain conditions, individuals can
petition search engines and online platforms to delete their personal data,
reclaiming control over their digital identities[1].
In May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) formalized the Right
to Be Forgotten (RTBF) in the EU. The law established the RTBF and stressed
personal privacy in dynamic digital world[2].The
2014 case of Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos[3]
clarified the Right to be Forgotten and set a precedent for search engines to
manage personal data[4].
The CJEU ruled that people can request that outdated or irrelevant links be
removed. This judgment prioritises privacy over information access[5].
The RTBF
presents significant challenges about how to reconcile privacy and free speech.
The right may censor prominent figures' information, according to critics[6].
Dynamic internet characteristics and diverse international legal frameworks The
Right to Be Forgotten statute requires overcoming many obstacles[7].
Historical Context
The right to be forgotten and its historical
roots
With
technological advances and the digitalization of personal data, the RTBF
evolved from secrecy and data protection issues. This privilege stems from
legal and philosophical concerns about privacy and autonomy. RTBF philosophy
values personal dignity and self-determination. As governments and corporations
collected more data, European data protection regulations emerged in the 1970s
to protect personal data[8].
Early talks on data protection established the framework for later discussions
on personal data rights. The "Right to be Forgotten" became famous when
social media sites collected massive amounts of personal data. The French Data
Protection Authority (Commission Nationale Informatique & Libertes, )
recommended that internet users might ask the deletion of their personal data
in its 2010 report. This idea emphasized how important it is to manage digital
footprints, since information that is out of date or not needed can hurt
privacy and image.
The RTBF
became law in May 2018 under the EU's GDPR. The European Commission (2016)[9]
states that Article 17 of the GDPR grants the "right to be
forgotten," or the right to have personal data erased. The 2014 CJEU
ruling in Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos recognized
individuals' ability to request removal of outdated or irrelevant links,
significantly impacting this law (Cohen, 2019).This case helped make the RTBF a
legal right in the EU. However, the RTBF is not widely used. Privacy and free
speech are handled differently in the US, which raises doubts about whether
equivalent rights may be implemented there[10].
The differences between jurisdictions show the difficulties of balancing
privacy with public interest and free speech.
Global Responses
The EU
The EU
responded most thoroughly to the RTBF. The 2014 CJEU ruling in Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de
Protección of Datos established the RTBF as a basic right allowing persons
to request deletion of personal data connections under specific conditions. When
a person's personal data is no longer needed or if their consent is withdrawn,
they are able to request its erasure thanks to the RTBF in the GDPR, which was
established by this ruling. Data protection laws worldwide are influenced by
the GDPR's balance of private rights and public information.
United
States
America
has been against RTBF's formalization. The First Amendment's protection of free
expression and other American legal standards make such a privilege difficult
to exercise. RTBF is excluded from CCPA safeguards[11]. Critics
say the U.S. policy promotes free expression over privacy, calling for a more
balanced approach[12].
A federal data protection bill has been debated, reflecting the ongoing
conflict between privacy and free speech activists.
Latin
America
The RTBF
has received mixed reviews in Latin America, with some governments recognizing
it legally. Brazil's 2018 General Data Protection Law includes GDPR-like rights
to data deletion and access (Brazilian Law No. 13,709/2018). The RTBF's effects
on public interest and historical record-keeping are still debated[13].
The Asia-Pacific
Asia-Pacific
reactions vary widely. The Privacy Act 1988 of Australia grants data deletion
rights but not RTBFs. With their RTBF study, the Australian Law Reform
Commission shows a growing interest in worldwide patterns.In Japan, the Act on
the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) has strengthened individual
rights but does not establish an RTBF[14].
India, among other countries, is preparing data protection laws that may
include RTBF features, reflecting a growing awareness of privacy rights due to
technology advances.
Legal
Framework
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of
the European Union
The RTBF
is primarily based on the GDPR, which went into effect on May 25, 2018.
According to the European Parliament and Council (2016), Article 17 of the GDPR
concerns the "right to be forgotten" (right to erasure).
1. When
personal data is no longer needed for its original purpose, an individual can
request its deletion (Article 17).
2. Upon
withdrawal of consent and no further legal basis for processing.
3. In cases
of data processing that is unlawful.
4. When
removal is mandated by law.
The
GDPR carefully balances personal privacy rights with public interest by
considering considerations such as freedom of expression and information
(Article 17(3)). Judicial bodies and institutions have established an extensive
body of case law and guidelines to interpret and implement the Act, achieving a
nuanced equilibrium[15].
National
Implementations and Variations
The GDPR
offers a framework, but member states must pass laws to clarify or broaden the
RTBF. The CNIL now requires French search engines to examine requests
individually (CNIL, 2020). France considers data requester age, sensitivity,
and public interest.In contrast, the RTBF's future is uncertain in light of the
UK's post-Brexit strategy. Data privacy talks have changed, and there are
proposals for a more business-friendly framework that could restrict the RTBF's
reach, even though the UK kept the GDPR in domestic law via the EU (Withdrawal)
Act 2018. (UK Government, 2021).[16]
Global
Perspectives
The RTBF
is slowly but surely becoming popular outside of the European Union. While the
CCPA did establish certain deletion rights in 2019, it does not explicitly
acknowledge the RTBF as is the case in the EU. The CCPA does away with customer
data deletion requests, but it doesn't cover as much ground as the RTBF did,
especially when it came to public records and search engines (California
Legislative Information, 2018). In 2020, Japan amended its Act on the Protection
of Personal Information (APPI) to improve individual rights such data erasure. Nevertheless,
similar to the CCPA, it does not directly include an RTBF, which reflects the
fact that different cultural contexts have varied perspectives on privacy
rights.
Legal Framework in India
Present Situation
India does
not yet have a complete legal system that respects the Right to be Forgotten.
But in the 2017 decision of Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India[17],
the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is an inalienable fundamental
right. This decision establishes a standard for acknowledging rights to data
protection, which may include RTBF.Recognizing the right to be forgotten, the Court made it
clear in the Puttaswamy case that it should not be absolute. Under certain
circumstances, such as those involving matters of public interest, public
health, archiving, research, or legal claims, this right may not be applicable.
Claimed that if this right were to be recognized, it would only apply in cases
where an individual's personal data is no longer needed or relevant. The right
to "erasure" is recognized under the Digital Personal Data Protection
Act of 2023, but how this law applies to publicly available data and court
records is still up for debate, with different courts reaching different
conclusions. Intermediaries are required to remove or limit access to any
content that violates privacy within 24 hours of receiving a complaint,
according to the Information Technology Rules, 2021. In relation to the Right
to Be Forgotten, what are the relevant judicial precedents?
Case of Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,
1994[18]:
This significant case distinguished the "right to be let alone" from
public opinions on documents such as court decisions, which remain accessible
for public discourse. . The Gujarat High Court rejected a motion to seal an
acquittal from public record, stating that court orders must be available (Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs. State of
Gujarat, 2017[19]).
In a criminal case involving "revenge porn," the Orissa High Court
(2020) stressed the importance of a thorough discussion of the right to be
forgotten. The execution of this right raises difficult issues that necessitate
well-defined legal limitations and means for remedy, as pointed out by the
Court.
A criminal case's right to be
forgotten was expanded by the Delhi High Court (2021), enabling the removal of
facts from search results to safeguard the petitioner's social life and
professional opportunities. A system to remove the personal details of a couple
embroiled in a difficult marital dispute from search engines was directed to be
created by the Supreme Court's registry in a July 2022 order. Because of this,
the right to be forgotten could be interpreted in several ways. Concerned about
transparent justice and public interest, the Kerala High judicial ruled in
December 2023 that the right to be forgotten cannot be applied to ongoing
judicial proceedings. The court noted that the right might be considered
depending on the precise characteristics of the case and the amount of time
that has passed, but it also suggested that legislative clarity is needed. In a
rape case that came before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in July 2024, the
court ordered the removal of the identities of the victim and the accused,
stating that a person should not have to live with the shame of being accused
and then exonerated.
Socio-Legal Implications
Privacy vs. Freedom of Expression
The RTBF
highlights a crucial issue between privacy and free speech. This tension
becomes more apparent when some people want to have dangerous information
removed from the internet, while others want to make the point that everyone
should be able to access the same information. This section delves into the
relationship between these rights, the laws that control them, and pertinent
court decisions. This tension is heightened in India due to its diverse
population and cultural values of collective memory and individual dignity.
The
Right to Privacy
Many legal
systems recognize the right to privacy, which allows persons to control the
disclosure of their personal information. Article 17 of the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) emphasizes the right to erase personal data under
certain conditions (European Parliament and Council, 2016). This provision
supports the idea that people should be able to maintain their online
identities and reputations in an age with lasting digital footprints.
In the
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia
Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (2014) case, the
CJEU ruled that individuals can request to remove outdated personal information
from search engine results. The decision emphasises privacy in the digital age
and confirms that people can block access to outdated information (CJEU, 2014).
After Supreme Court declaration for the privacy a fundamental right, India's
recognition of privacy has grown. A nation with a rising online presence is
becoming more cognizant of digital rights, and this legislative affirmation encourages
citizens to govern their personal data. Without a comprehensive data protection
law, exercising this right is difficult.
Freedom
of Expression
On the
other side, it is impossible to have public discourse, hold individuals
accountable, or disseminate knowledge without the freedom of expression, which
is fundamental to democratic nations. Those who oppose the RTBF point out that
the ability to remove content can limit free speech, especially when it
pertains to publicly-interested material[20].
This conflict becomes apparent when people try to hide embarrassing details
about themselves from public view. The
Google Spain case highlighted this argument. CJEU: Finding a balance between
privacy and free speech is crucial. The Court's 2014 opinion (CJEU) states that
while people have the right to erase sensitive information, the public interest
in retaining access must be weighed. There will be some removal requests that
cannot be granted without conditions, and this judgment recognizes that. Free
speech and expression are important rights under the Indian Constitution,
underpinning democratic governance. When people remove public-interest content,
this legal framework raises questions about governance accountability and
transparency. Prolonged concentration on RTBF could limit public discourse,
especially in a vibrant democracy like India, say critics.
Balancing
Interests
Creating a
law that balances privacy and free speech is the true challenge. Jurisdictions
handle this balancing differently. The GDPR allows EU removal requests to be
assessed individually to balance these interests. To evaluate requests, the
European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted rules based on public interest
(EDPB, 2020). In contrast, the US supports free speech. The First Amendment
protects free speech even when reputation is at danger. This mismatch shows
cultural and legal differences in privacy and free speech.
Establishing a legal framework that
balances privacy and free speech in India remains a significant challenge.
Unlike the structured approach of the GDPR, India lacks clear guidelines for
assessing RTBF requests, leaving individuals and authorities uncertain. This
legal ambiguity necessitates a careful approach to drafting legislation that
respects both rights while considering India's unique socio-cultural landscape.
Public Interest Considerations
The RTBF
conflicts with privacy and free speech. While free speech is essential to
democracies, privacy permits individuals to manage their data and online identities.
In the Google Spain ruling, the CJEU affirmed the right of individuals to
remove unnecessary or outdated personal information from search engine results.
Critics say erasing data limits free expression, especially if the public needs
it. Conflicting interests must be balanced when creating a legal system. In the
EU, the GDPR balances these interests, but in countries like the US, the First
Amendment protects free speech even if it harms someone's reputation.
Technological Implications
Search
Engines and Data Management
The RTBF
must manage data while ensuring privacy and accessibility. Google's massive
data access drives this dynamic. Search engines must consider regional legal
interpretations and sensitivities while processing RTBF requests in India due
to varied linguistic and cultural contexts. Similar issues arise in the EU,
where the GDPR requires rigorous data erasure (European Parliament and Council,
2016). As people become more conscious of digital rights, India needs dedicated
personnel to analyze RTBF demands[21].
In Europe, search engines constantly adjust their algorithms to balance privacy
and information access[22].
Technologies for the Retention and Deletion of
Data
There is
an effect that the RTBF has on the retention and deletion of data within an
organization. Companies in India are coming under growing pressure to build
sophisticated data governance systems that are in accordance with both the RTBF
and the proposed Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB), which mandates the
timely deletion of personal data upon request[23].
This legal environment is comparable to that of the EU, where firms are
required to meet severe data management procedures in order to comply with the
GDPR (Shadbolt et al., 2016).
The
efficient deletion processes are made more difficult by the sharing of data
between platforms. In India, the difficulties are made even more difficult by
the fact that organizations have different compliance standards and that they
send data across international borders (Iyer, 2022). According to Jansen and Van
der Meer (2018), this is a reflection of the challenges that are encountered in
the United States, where fragmented data privacy legislation bring about
complications in the process of maintaining the integrity of data during
deletion.
Improving Technologies That Protect Privacy
The RTBF
and other privacy restrictions have contributed to the rise in popularity of
privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs). customers in India are wanting greater
control over their digital footprints, which is encouraging businesses to
incorporate personal electronic signatures (PETs) into their services (Patel,
2021). This is because customers are becoming more conscious of their rights to
data privacy. According to Culnan and Bies (2003), this tendency is also seen
in nations such as Canada, where businesses are in the process of implementing
similar technologies in order to increase consumer trust.
Consumers
are able to exercise their right to be forthright (RTBF) through the use of
PETs, which also aid businesses in meeting their legal requirements while
respecting user privacy. Businesses in India who place a high priority on user
privacy by implementing cutting-edge technologies have the potential to gain a
competitive advantage. This is in line with worldwide trends, which indicate
that privacy is becoming an important differentiator in digital services (Kaur,
2022).
Managed Access for Users on Social Media
A unique
set of RTBF challenges is presented by social media. Particularly in India, the
interplay between private and public information presents a unique set of
issues, particularly due to the fact that users may accidentally post content
that is harmful, which results in an increase in the number of requests for
removal (Reddy, 2021). This phenomena is witnessed all over the world, where
the instantaneous nature of social media frequently makes it more difficult for
users to control their identities when they are online (Rosen, 2012).
Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are investigating ways to improve user control over data in India. This would allow for improved monitoring of postings and comments throughout the platform.[24] However, the quick generation of content provides ongoing issues, as earlier posts may continue to circulate even after attempts to delete them. This is a reflection of similar concerns that are faced in other countries[25].
Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are investigating ways to improve user control over data in India. This would allow for improved monitoring of postings and comments throughout the platform.[24] However, the quick generation of content provides ongoing issues, as earlier posts may continue to circulate even after attempts to delete them. This is a reflection of similar concerns that are faced in other countries[25].
Case Studies
Case Study
1: Dispute between Google Spain SL and Spanish Data Protection Agency
Background: The Right to Be Forgotten
is based on this 2014 CJEU ruling. Mario Costeja González requested the removal
of links to his 1998 financial issues newspaper article. He said the material
was old and useless, violating his privacy.
Results: Success for González at the
CJEU meant that people can ask for search engines to delete links to their
personal data if it's too much, irrelevant, or inadequate for the original
purpose of processing. With this ruling, the RTBF was formed throughout Europe
and the EU's data privacy standards were upheld with regard to search engines.
Significance: This case changed data
privacy by forcing search engines to handle RTBF queries and changing online
information access [26].
Case Study
2:-NT1&NT2 v. Google LLC
Background: This 2018 UK case involved
two claimants seeking to erase their personal information from Google search
results. NT1 had been convicted, but NT2 had reformed and wanted to move on.
The High Court had to weigh privacy and public access.
Results: The court found in favor of
NT2, allowing him to delete links to his past due to his rehabilitated status
and the lack of public interest. The court denied NT1's motion since his
criminal conviction was in the public interest (Google LLC v. NT1 & NT2,
2018).[27]
Significance: Courts must balance
individual rights and the public interest while deciding RTBF requests. It also
shows how privacy rules change among jurisdictions[28].
Case Study 3: GC v. M. J.
Case Study 3: GC v. M. J.
Background: In 2019, the CJEU heard a
case concerning people trying to remove links to critical news stories. The
petitioners claimed the stories damaged their reputation and violated their
right to be forgotten.
Results:The CJEU upheld the right
to have links removed, confirming that persons can request the removal of
irrelevant or unneeded information. The court stressed the relevance of facts
and setting in upholding the RTBF (CJEU, 2019).
Significance: This
decision clarified RTBF request evaluation criteria and demonstrated the
court's dedication to balance privacy and information rights [29].
Case Study 4Google-CNIL
Background: The CJEU considered
whether the RTBF should apply globally or solely in the EU in 2019. Google
challenged the French data protection body CNIL's global link removal order,
claiming it infringed free speech rights in other states.
Results: The court determined that
the RTBF applies only to EU search engines, not global ones. This verdict means
that while EU people can have information removed from European searches,
Google is not required to remove it from global searches (CJEU, 2019).
Significance: This case
highlighted the challenges of enforcing privacy laws across jurisdictions,
raising questions about the RTBF and global data management (Sweeney, 2019).
Case Study 5: Social Media "Right to Be Forgotten"
Case Study 5: Social Media "Right to Be Forgotten"
Background: Social media networks have
struggled with RTBF requests, especially for user-generated content. One
noteworthy 2020 case featured a user seeking Facebook to erase personal
information and nasty remarks.
Outcome: Facebook's answer showed
the difficulties of applying the RTBF to social media, where content is widely
shared and incorporated. The platform removed the content but was criticized
for privacy issues[30].
Significance: This case
shows how social media businesses struggle with user privacy and the RTBF in
fast-changing situations[31].
Recommendations for Future Frameworks
Comprehensive
Legislative Framework
Recommendation:
Governments should develop comprehensive legislation that explicitly defines
the RTBF, its scope, and its limitations. This legislation should incorporate
the following elements:
·
Clear Definitions: Define
key terms, including "personal data," "irrelevant
information," and "public interest," to reduce ambiguity.
·
Criteria for Request Approval:
Establish transparent criteria for evaluating RTBF requests, balancing individual
rights against public interest and freedom of expression.
Framework
Component: The legislative framework should be adaptable, allowing for periodic
reviews and updates in response to technological and societal changes.
International Collaboration
Recommendation: Given the global nature
of the internet, an international approach is necessary. Countries should
collaborate to create harmonized standards for RTBF.
·
Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements:
Encourage countries to enter agreements that recognize and enforce RTBF across
borders while respecting local laws and cultural contexts.
Framework
Component: Establish an international body to oversee and facilitate discussions
on RTBF, sharing best practices and addressing conflicts between jurisdictions.
Recommendation: Develop
technological tools that can support RTBF applications and enforcement.
·
Automated Systems: Create
algorithms that assist in processing RTBF requests, ensuring efficiency while
maintaining human oversight to address complex cases.
·
Data Minimization Techniques Adopt
GDPR-compliant solutions that reduce data gathering and retention.
·
Framework Component: Promote
collaboration between technology companies and legal experts to innovate
solutions that respect user privacy while maintaining transparency in data
practices.
Public
Awareness and Education
Recommendation: Increase
public awareness and understanding of the RTBF.
- Educational Programs:
Implement programs aimed at educating individuals about their rights under
RTBF, the process of making requests, and the implications of sharing
personal information online.
Framework
Component: Develop resources and tools for individuals to navigate RTBF requests,
making the process accessible and user-friendly.
Balancing
Privacy with Freedom of Expression
Recommendation:
Establish guidelines that adequately balance the RTBF with freedom of
expression.[32]
- Public Interest Tests:
Implement systematic public interest tests for cases where RTBF requests
conflict with journalistic or academic expression.
Framework
Component: Create an independent review board to assess complex RTBF cases
involving freedom of expression, ensuring impartiality in decision-making.[33]
Monitoring
and Compliance
Recommendation:
Establish mechanisms to monitor compliance with RTBF regulations.
- Regular Audits:
Conduct periodic audits of search engines and data processors to ensure
compliance with RTBF requests and the effectiveness of processes in place.
Framework
Component: Develop a reporting system where individuals can report non-compliance
or grievances regarding the handling of RTBF requests.
Adaptability
to Emerging Technologies
Recommendation: Make
sure the RTBF framework can handle AI, blockchain, and IoT.
Proactive
Assessments: Regularly examine how new technologies affect
privacy rights and the RTBF and update legislation to mitigate threats.
Framework
Component: Create a task force of legal experts, technologists, and ethicists to
evaluate and propose amendments to RTBF legislation as technologies evolve.
Conclusion
The RTBF
revolutionizes digital privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.
Subsequent to the 2010 study by the French Data Protection Authority and the
2018 General Data Protection Regulation, the RTBF emphasizes individual freedom
over personal data in the digital age. The RTBF possesses robust legal support
within the EU; yet, its global implementation presents challenges. Non-EU
nations, such as the United States and those in the Asia-Pacific region, value
freedom of expression above privacy safeguards. This disparity underscores the
necessity for a comprehensive legislative framework to harmonize these
interests across jurisdictions. The GDPR's equilibrium between private and
public interests may serve as a model for other countries implementing similar
protections. [34]
The RTBF
has significant socio-legal ramifications as it reconciles privacy and free
speech within democratic societies. Cases such as Google Spain SL v. Agencia
Española de Protección de Datos illustrate the significance of the Right to Be Forgotten
in data management and discussions over individual rights. Technological
advancements complicate the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF). In a rapidly evolving
digital landscape, data retention and deletion necessitate innovative
solutions, encompassing privacy-enhancing technologies and robust governance
frameworks. Social media platforms have challenges related to user-generated
content and the enforcement of the RTBF.
The RTBF must adjust to technical and societal transformations. Thorough legislation must delineate the right, establish clear criteria for its implementation, and accommodate emerging technologies. Establish a global standard for the recognition and enforcement of the RTBF through international cooperation. India faces opportunities and difficulties from the developing Right to be Forgotten. RTBF implementation requires a comprehensive and nuanced strategy, despite the Supreme Court and Personal Data Protection act auspicious start. India must balance individual privacy rights with community goals as it navigates 21st-century digital privacy. Future legislation must incorporate global best practices while respecting India's distinct culture and society.
[1] Bennett, C. J., &Raab, C. D. (2017). The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in global perspective. Ashgate Publishing.
[3] (2014) 3 WLR 659
[5] Margarit, A. (2018). The right to
be forgotten: An analysis of its legal and practical implications. European
Journal of Law and Technology, 9(1), 1-24.
[6] Kuczynski, J. (2020). Censorship vs. privacy:
The dilemma of the right to be forgotten. Digital
Privacy Journal, 5(1),
45-67.
[7] Purtova, N. (2018). The right to be
forgotten: A European perspective. In The Oxford
handbook of data protection law (pp. 345-367). Oxford University Press.
[8] Bennett, C. J. (1992). Regulating privacy: Data protection and public policy in Europe and
the United States.
Cornell University Press.
[10] Bennett, C. J. (2017). The right to be
forgotten: A comparative perspective. In Privacy
and data protection in the age of big data (pp. 45-62). Palgrave Macmillan.
[11] California Legislative
Information. (2018). California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
[12]Regan, P. M. (2017). Privacy, technology,
and the right to be forgotten. Harvard Journal of
Law & Technology, 31(1),
123-150.
[13] González Fuster, G., et al. (2020). The
right to be forgotten in the European Union: The current status and future
perspectives. Journal of Law and Cyber Warfare, 9(1), 45-68.
[14] Kawashima, K. (2021). Data privacy in
Japan: Recent developments and future directions. Privacy
Law & Business International Report, (164), 10-12.
[15]Bygrave, L. A. (2018). Data protection law: Approaching its rationale, logic and limits. Kluwer Law International.
[17] Writ
Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161
[18] AIR
1995 SC 264 or (1994) 6 SCC 632.
[20] Sullivan, M. (2017). Public interest and
the right to be forgotten: Balancing privacy and freedom of expression. Media Law Review, 25(2), 45-65.
[21] Binns, R. (2018). Data privacy and the
right to be forgotten: The social media challenge. Computer
Law & Security Review, 34(6), 1247-1260.
[22] Morrison, D. (2016). The challenges of
implementing the right to be forgotten: A search engine perspective. Internet Policy Review, 5(2), 1-18.
[23] Jung, J., &Ahn, J. (2020). The right
to be forgotten on social media: A case study of user privacy and content
removal. Journal of Information Policy, 10, 80-99.
[24] Shadbolt, N., et al. (2016). Big data and
privacy: The challenge of the right to be forgotten. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 723-730.
[25] González Fuster, G., et al. (2017). The
emergence of privacy in social media: A study of Facebook and Twitter users. In
Privacy and identity management (pp. 123-140). Springer.
[26] De Hert, P., &Papakonstantinou, V.
(2016). The right to be forgotten: A comparative study of the legal frameworks
in the EU and the US. In Data protection and
privacy: The age of the GDPR
(pp. 3-24). Hart Publishing.
[28] Wright, D. (2019). The right to be
forgotten: Balancing privacy and public interest in the UK. European Data Protection Law Review, 5(1), 17-29.
[29] González, M. C. (2020). Privacy in Brazil:
The impact of data protection laws on freedom of expression. Journal of Comparative Law, 15(2), 123-145.
[30] Margarit, A. (2018). The right to be
forgotten: An analysis of its legal and practical implications. European Journal of Law and Technology, 9(1), 1-24.
[31] Pfitzmann, A., & Hansen, M. (2010).
Anonymity, unlinkability, undetectability, and unobservability: A consolidated
proposal for terminology. In Privacy enhancing
technologies (pp. 1-19).
Springer.
[32] Sweeney, L. (2019). Privacy, technology,
and the global right to be forgotten: Challenges and opportunities. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 1-19.
[34] Culnan, M. J., &Bies, R. J. (2003).
Managing privacy: The challenge of information technology. California Management Review, 45(3), 24-46.