当前位置: X-MOL 学术Comput. Law Secur. Rev. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
‘Private jurisprudence’ and the right to be forgotten balancing test
Computer Law & Security Review ( IF 2.707 ) Pub Date : 2020-08-30 , DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105458
M.R. Leiser

Upon receipt of a right to be forgotten request, private actors like Google are responsible for implementing the balancing test between competing rights of privacy and data protection and free expression and access to information. This amounts to private jurisprudence that data subjects, lawyers, and interested parties could, theoretically, game to their advantage. This paper critiques this process and argues two separate, but related points. (1) Search engines have become the sole arbiter of the rights to privacy and data protection under Articles 7 and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, when safeguarding should be a responsibility of state authorities. (2) As private actors face litigation if their decision is not acceptable to the data subject, the right to access information and the public's right to know is compromised. Search engines exert considerable power over access to and Internet usage, yet nevertheless benefit from frameworks that permit a lack of adherence to similar human rights standards as public actors or agencies. As such, empowering search engines as decision-makers over conflicting fundamental rights is problematic. Rather than allow the content of the right to be forgotten to be fleshed out by private actors, the significant body of existing jurisprudence should form the basis for public guidelines on how to implement the right to be forgotten. An analysis of case law of national courts, the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU reveals two related matters: it is possible to reverse engineer how search engines determine which requests will be actioned and those which will be denied. This paper argues a) collectively the body of jurisprudence is of sufficient standing to develop a public and transparent balancing test that is fair to all stakeholders and b) private actors should no longer be resolving the conflict between competing fundamental rights. The paper closes by positing a framework, loosely based on ICANN's Uniform Domain Resolution Procedure for resolving conflict between conflicting cyber property rights that provides transparency and accountability to the right to be forgotten and removes search engines as arbiters of the balancing test in select cases.



中文翻译:

“私法学”与平衡测试被遗忘的权利

收到被遗忘权的请求后,像Google这样的私人行为者有责任在隐私权与数据保护权,自由表达权和信息访问权之间进行平衡测试。这相当于私人法理学,数据主体,律师和有关方面从理论上讲可以发挥自己的优势。本文对这一过程进行了批评,并提出了两个独立但相关的观点。(1)搜索引擎已经成为在第7和基本权利宪章和欧洲人权公约的,当第8和10的权利,隐私和数据保护的唯一仲裁者保障应该是国家当局的责任。(2)由于私人行为者如果他们的决定不能为数据主体所接受,将面临诉讼,因此信息获取权和公众知情权均受到损害。搜索引擎在访问和互联网使用方面发挥着巨大的力量,但是仍然受益于框架,这些框架允许不遵守与公共行为者或机构类似的人权标准。因此,赋予搜索引擎决策者以权利冲突的基础是有问题的。现有法学的重要组成部分不是让私人行为者充实被遗忘的权利的内容, 应该成为有关如何实施被遗忘权的公共准则的基础。对国家法院,欧洲人权法院和欧洲法院的判例法的分析揭示了两个相关的问题:可以对搜索引擎如何确定将要执行的请求和将要拒绝的请求进行反向工程。本文认为:a)法理学在总体上具有足够的地位,可以制定对所有利益相关者都公平的公开透明的平衡测试; b)私人行为者不应再解决相互竞争的基本权利之间的冲突。本文最后以宽松地基于ICANN统一域名解析程序的框架为基础,以解决冲突的网络财产权之间的冲突,从而提供透明度追究被遗忘权的责任,并在某些情况下取消搜索引擎作为平衡测试的仲裁者。

更新日期:2020-08-31
down
wechat
bug