‘The Duty to Remember v the Right to be Forgotten: Holocaust Archiving and Research, and European Data Protection Law’: Notes from Arye Schreiber’s seminar hosted by NINSO, the Northumbria Internet & Society Research Interest Group

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daria Onitiu
Keyword(s):  
Interest Group ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Research Interest ◽  
European Data ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Society Research

Incomplete Data Protection Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 1071-1104
Author(s):  
Kunbei Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
European Data ◽  
Chinese Perspective ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Right

The European legal system governing data protection issues is widely regarded as an adequate blueprint for late developers to follow. According to this position, host countries will benefit from receiving the ready-made data protection law because it has already gone through a process of trial and error in Europe. For example, China follows the traditional civil law measures on data protection, such as contractual and tort liability. No Chinese legislation deals specifically with the right to protection of personal data. In China, researchers paid attention to the European legal system, which is regarded as the milestone for data protection. Some vigorously suggest that China should quickly move to enact data protection law based on the model provided by European law.When Chinese researchers strongly promote the European legal system over data protection issues, they send an underlying message that the quality of European laws is good enough to sufficiently deter violations: Individuals would be prohibited from carrying out harmful actions as soon as the expected law is transplanted to China. From a Chinese perspective, our country could quickly move to enact a similar law following the tone of Europe in order to enhance the efficiency of data protection. But is this a compelling position? Will European data protection laws indeed regulate unambiguously and prospectively? Will European data protection laws provide clear guidance to Chinese judges for resolving data protection-related cases? And will the court-enforced laws sufficiently solve the broad spectrum of problems on data use? Understanding the European enforcement mechanism covering data protection issues, and thereby assessing its efficacy on deterrence, is vital to answering these questions.

Data Portability as a Data Subject Right

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-188
Author(s):  
Helena U. Vrabec
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
The Right ◽  
Data Subject

Chapter 7 analyses the right to data portability set out in Article 20 of the GDPR. It first provides an overview of several commercial and regulatory initiatives that preceded the GDPR version of the right to personal data portability. Next, it explores the language of Article 20 to demonstrate the effects of the narrow scope of the right. The chapter then shows how data portability interacts with other data subject rights, particularly with the right to access and the right to be forgotten, before it describes manifestations of data portability in legal areas outside of the data protection law. Finally, the chapter explores the specific objective of the right to data portability under the GDPR as an enabler of data subjects’ control.

scholarly journals Right to be forgotten: european data imperialism, national privilege, or universal human right?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-152
Author(s):  
Oskar J. Gstrein
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Data ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The Digital Age has fundamentally reshaped the preconditions for privacy and freedom of expression. This transpires in the debate about a "right to be forgotten". While the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in "Google Spain" touches upon the underlying issue of how increasing amounts of personal data affects individuals over time, the topic has also become one of the salient problems of Internet Governance. On 24th September 2019 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in "Google vs CNIL" (C-507/17) which was supposed to clarify the territorial scope of the right. However, this judgment has raised doubts about the enforceability of the General Data Protection Regulation, and reveals the complex, multi-layered governance structure of the European Union. Acknowledging such complexity at a substantive and institutional level, this article starts by analysing the judgment. Additionally, to better understand the current situation in the European Union and its member states, recently produced draft guidelines by the European Data Protection Board are presented and discussed, as well as two judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the European developments are put in international context. Finally, the insights from these sections are combined which allows to develop several conceptual ideas. In conclusion, it is argued that the right to be forgotten remains complex and evolving. Its success depends on effective multi-layer and multistakeholder interaction. In this sense, it has become a prominent study object that reveals potential venues and pitfalls on a path towards more sophisticated data protection frameworks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document