Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’

Abstract In Google Spain, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in certain circumstances, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove search results from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name. In respect of implementation of t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dan Jerker B Svantesson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget) 2015-01-01
Series:Oslo Law Review
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.idunn.no/oslo_law_review/2015/02/limitless_borderless_forgetfulness_limiting_the_geographic
id doaj-fe40a7acda014e04b45169a2bb37caa9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fe40a7acda014e04b45169a2bb37caa92020-11-25T02:53:04ZengScandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget)Oslo Law Review2387-32992015-01-01211613810.5617/oslaw256718948693Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’Dan Jerker B SvantessonAbstract In Google Spain, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in certain circumstances, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove search results from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name. In respect of implementation of this ‘right to be forgotten’ — or more accurately ‘right to delisting’ — one of the most important issues relates to the geographical scope of the delisting; that is, once it is decided that certain search results should be delisted, what is the appropriate geographical scope of the delisting? Google is currently only delisting in relation to EU domains such as .es, .nl and .de. However, in sharp contrast, the EU’s Article 29 Working Party on data protection wants global blocking so as to ensure that EU law is not ‘circumvented’. This article canvasses the contours of this issue and attempts to advance its resolution by proposing a Model Code for Determining the Geographical Scope of Delisting Under the Right To Delisting. While the Model is presented in the EU context, it can easily be transplanted into other jurisdictions as well.https://www.idunn.no/oslo_law_review/2015/02/limitless_borderless_forgetfulness_limiting_the_geographicData privacyjurisdiction extraterritorialityright to be forgottenright to delistingDataprivacyjurisdictionextraterritoriality
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Dan Jerker B Svantesson
spellingShingle Dan Jerker B Svantesson
Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’
Oslo Law Review
Data privacy
jurisdiction extraterritoriality
right to be forgotten
right to delisting
Dataprivacy
jurisdictionextraterritoriality
author_facet Dan Jerker B Svantesson
author_sort Dan Jerker B Svantesson
title Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’
title_short Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’
title_full Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’
title_fullStr Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’
title_full_unstemmed Limitless Borderless Forgetfulness? Limiting the Geographical Reach of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’
title_sort limitless borderless forgetfulness? limiting the geographical reach of the ‘right to be forgotten’
publisher Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget)
series Oslo Law Review
issn 2387-3299
publishDate 2015-01-01
description Abstract In Google Spain, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in certain circumstances, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove search results from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name. In respect of implementation of this ‘right to be forgotten’ — or more accurately ‘right to delisting’ — one of the most important issues relates to the geographical scope of the delisting; that is, once it is decided that certain search results should be delisted, what is the appropriate geographical scope of the delisting? Google is currently only delisting in relation to EU domains such as .es, .nl and .de. However, in sharp contrast, the EU’s Article 29 Working Party on data protection wants global blocking so as to ensure that EU law is not ‘circumvented’. This article canvasses the contours of this issue and attempts to advance its resolution by proposing a Model Code for Determining the Geographical Scope of Delisting Under the Right To Delisting. While the Model is presented in the EU context, it can easily be transplanted into other jurisdictions as well.
topic Data privacy
jurisdiction extraterritoriality
right to be forgotten
right to delisting
Dataprivacy
jurisdictionextraterritoriality
url https://www.idunn.no/oslo_law_review/2015/02/limitless_borderless_forgetfulness_limiting_the_geographic
work_keys_str_mv AT danjerkerbsvantesson limitlessborderlessforgetfulnesslimitingthegeographicalreachoftherighttobeforgotten
_version_ 1724726954984210432