US – 28 29 EC/EU 30 32 33 34 36 37 – AT 38 39 41 42 43 44 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 US/EU 56 59 60 61 62 63 64 67 68 69 EU 70 US 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 80 81 82 83 85 AT U.S. 86 87 AT FOIA 88 AT 90 FORGIVENESS JUSTICE JUSTICE GENERAL INTERNET OF TO PRIVACY
Germany Wikipedia doesn’t comply with German laws Messenger 12 Messenger, Ashley, Michigan Law. What Would a "Right to Be Forgotten" Mean for Media in the United States? Communications Lawyer : Publication of the Forum Committee on Communications Law, American Bar Association. 29.1 (Jun 2012): 29-37. [PDI] Germany allows courts to enjoin the use of a convicted criminal's name once the sentence has been served.6 Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, who were convicted of the 1990 murder of actor Walter Sedlmayr, attempted to use German law to force Wikipedia to remove references to them. A German court issued an order demanding that their names be removed; Wikipedia, however, questioned whether an order from a German court would be enforceable because the company has no assets in Germany and is based in the United States.7 As of April 2012, the names of Werle and Lauber still appeared on the version of Wikipedia entries about them and about their victim.8 language
Google Forgets but not Facebook States should allow erasure of search engine results but not social media data Ambrose et al 12 Meg Leta Ambrose, doctoral candidate, Nicole Friess, JD, LLM, associate of Holland and Hart LLP, and Jill Van Matre, JD, associate director of University of Colorado’s ATLAS institute. “SEEKING DIGITAL REDEMPTION: THE FUTURE OF FORGIVENESS IN THE AGE” 11/6/12 [PDI] A second possibility is to limit the use of personal information. Legislatures could enact laws that limit a potential employers’ ability to search for or consider online information about a potential applicant that is older than a designated period.395 An employer may have an interest in how an employee reflects upon the company to the world through a search engine, but less of an interest in how he or she reflects upon the company to a smaller group of connected people on Facebook. An employer digging around in applicants’ social media profiles that are not publicly available is different than an employer searching for public information easily retrievable through a Google search. Thus, laws might distinguish between searching publicly available information, and seeking to obtain information only available through social networks or other more private spheres.
US Strong public opinion support for RTBF. Walker 12, (ROBERT KIRK WALKER, J.D. Candidate at University of California, Hastings College of the Law, “Note: The Right to Be Forgotten,” Hastings Law Journal, No. 64, pp. 257-286, 2012, [PDI] Additionally, personal data collection and retention practices are also largely out of sync with public perception of what data privacy rights should exist. 6 For example, a 2009 survey by the Universities of Pennsylvania and California found that more than 8o% of Americans believe websites should not track their behavior for advertising, and that more than 90% believe advertisers should be required by law to stop tracking on request.' A follow-up study in 2010 found that 88% of young adults surveyed'5 said that the law should require websites to delete all stored information about users,"9 and 62% said there should be a law giving people the right to know all the information that a website has collected about them.'6° The authors of these surveys found that, "large percentages of young adults are in harmony with older Americans when it comes to sensitivity about online privacy.'''6' These empirical results indicate a broad cultural preference for having the ability to opt-¶ out of data collection and to have personal data removed on demand. 61% of Americans support RTBF Maycotte 14 America's 'Right to Be Forgotten' Fight Heats Up Maycotte, H.O. 2014. 'America's 'Right To Be Forgotten' Fight Heats Up'. Forbes. Accessed October 1 2014. . [PDI] In fact, in conducted by , 61% of Americans already believe that some version of the right to be forgotten is necessary. Take a look at that 61%, though, and it is clear that most Americans are torn on exactly what that version of law would look like.¶ ¶ The upcoming California law in January 2015 targets the 15% of Americans who believe that irrelevant information should be removed for minors. As for the rest of the 61%, the majority of which believe the right to be forgotten should be applied to everyone, they will have to wait. For what? Well, for the definition of “relevancy” to lose its murkiness.
International Law The ECHR affirms – privacy rights are key in international law Koutras 14 Nikolaos Koutras, MSc, PhD Candidate Macquarie Law School, Australia “TRENDS TOWARDS STRONGER DATA PROTECTION: THE RIGHT BE FORGOTTEN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION” European Scientific Journal April 2014 edition vol.10, No.10 [PDI] Under the Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), a right to protection against the collection and use of personal data forms part of the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. A right to protection of an individual‘s private sphere against intrusion from others, in particular from the state, was laid down in an international legal instrument for the first time in Article 12 on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 on respect for private and family life. The UDHR influenced the development of other human rights tools in Europe (United Nations, 1948). The right to protection of personal data forms part of the rights protected under Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence and lays down the conditions under which restrictions of this are permitted (Council of Europe, 1950). With the ‗revolution‘ of information technology in the 1960s, a burgeoning need developed for more detailed regulations to safeguard individuals by protection their (personal data). By the mid-1970s, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted assorted resolutions on the protection of personal data, referring to the abovementioned Article 8 of the ECHR. In 1981, a Convention for the protection of individuals concerning the automatic processing of personal data (Convention 108) was opened for signature. Taking everything into consideration, convention 108 was, and still continues to be the only legally binding international instrument in the data protection field (Council of Europe, 1981).
AT Sullivan Neg offense is an overcorrection – Peltz-Steele 13 Richard J. Peltz-Steele, prof @ UMass, Georgetown Journal of International Law. 44.2 (Winter 2013): p365 [PDI] But in the latter chapters of his book, Lewis recognized the downside of constitutional lawmaking, namely its intransigence. (179) The Court might have over-corrected with Sullivan; the prophylaxis worked too well. In a system in which media defendants so plainly have the upper-hand against public figures and public officials, the usual behavioral economics of the tort system are perverted as to encourage carelessness, if not recklessness. Public servants suffer injury without compensation, and the hazard deters others from entering public life. Worse, there is no incentive for reform, because media have no reason to come to the table. Thus tort alternatives, such as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or declaratory judgments of truth and falsity are complete non-starters. The Uniform Correction or Clarification of Defamation Act (180) has been a colossal flop, in part because media fear that rocking the boat in state legislatures will end in lost defensive ground. (181)
Whom to Request People won’t even know who the various controllers are, which means they can’t make a request or sue Fazlioglu 13 Muge Fazlioglu, phd student in Law and Social Science @ Indiana, “Forget me not: the clash of the right to be forgotten and freedom of expression on the Internet” International Data Privacy Law, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 3 [PDI] However, in order to invoke the right to be forgotten, a user must first be able to identify the data controller(s) with whom one’s personal data has been shared.18 This task, however, can be a daunting one. In their sharing of personal data, users tend to ignore notices, often do not understand the choices (which often aren’t meaningful in any event), and resist making them unless compelled to do so (in which case they almost always make the choice required to obtain the desired service or product).19 Thus, although the effective exercise of the right to be forgotten depends to a large degree on user awareness, users are often not cognizant of the identities of the myriad data controllers who are digitally processing and storing their personal data.