ERASING THE ARCHIVES: RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN CYBER WORLD
Main Article Content
Abstract
The complexity of human memory can be traced to the ‘Internet of things as well. The evolving digital space has witnessed & recorded the life of humans across the timeline of their usage. Due to the eternal memory of the internet along with its wide accessibility, the threat of the digital past is a contemporary issue for internet users globally. This implication of remembering everything, while deleting nothing has raised a recent discourse on the “Right to be Forgotten” (RTBF hereinafter) digitally. Thus, RTBF empowers an individual to control the accessibility of his information available online. However, in India, the recent regulation of the Information/data by the legislation is quite limited wherein RTBF is still an alien concept. Henceforth, this paper hypothesizes the essentiality of the RTBF in Indian domestic law. The paper will attempt to establish the necessity & consequences of recognition of such social forgetfulness rights in cyberspace.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Assistant Professor of Law, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Jean-François Blanchette& Deborah G. Johnson, “Data Retention and the Panoptic Society: The Social Benefits of Forgetfulness”, 18(1) The Information Society 33-45 (2002) available atDOI: 10.1080/01972240252818216
Paul Lambert, The Right to be Forgotten (Bloomsbury Professional, 1stedn., 2019)
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4161.
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay and Andres Guadamuz, “Memory Hole or Right to Delist? Implications of the Right to be Forgotten for Web Archiving” 6 Recherchesen sciences sociales sur Internet (RESET) (2017)available at https://journals.openedition.org/reset/807 (last visited on May. 27, 2022).
C-362/14, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), (2015) available athttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0362 (last visited on May. 27, 2022).
Supra note 5.
(EU) 2016/679, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL (Apr. 27, 2016) available athttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679
C 131/12, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) (May, 2014) available athttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62012CJ0131(last visited on May. 27, 2022).
General Data Protection Regulation, art. 17(3).
Id.,art. 18.
Id.,art. 17(a).
Id.,art. 18(a).
Nikolaj Nielsen, “EU regulators want right-to-be forgotten to go global” euobserver (Nov. 26, 2014) availableat https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/126680(last visited on May. 27, 2022).
Case C-507/17, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) (Sep. 24, 2019) available athttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0507(last visited on May. 27, 2022).
Ibid.
Veronica Irwin, “Google will now remove personal information from search by request”, protocol (Apr. 28, 2022) available athttps://www.protocol.com/bulletins/google-search-personal-information(last visited on May. 27, 2022).
Supra note 3.
Jyoti J. Mozika, “Integrating the Right to be Forgotten in the Indian Legal Framework in the Light of Experiences from the European” 12(1) INDIAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND JUSTICE (2021).
(175) DRJ 660.
SCC OnLineGuj 2019.
Writ Petition No. 62038 of 2016.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000), s. 2(1).
Id., s. 2(w).
Bill No. 373 of 2019
“ Data Protection Bill has provisions for ‘right to be forgotten’, Centre tells HC”, The Hindu, (Dec. 17, 2021) available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/data-protection-bill-has-provisions-for-right-to-be-forgotten-centre-tells-hc/article37973230.ece (last visited on May. 27, 2022).
Edward Lee, “The Right to Be Forgotten v. Free Speech”, 12(1) I/S: A Journal Of Law And Policy (2015).
Google Transparency Report, “Requests to delist content under European privacy law” available at https://transparencyreport.google.com/eu-privacy/overview(last visited on May. 27, 2022).
N° C.15.0052.F, Cour de Cassation Belgique, Apr. 29, 2016 (Belg.).
Supra note 18.