107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

“ The so-called “right to be forgotten” is an affront to freedom of speech, and itwill be used to removelegitimate information fromonline sources.”

Critically analyse thisstatement in light of therecent European case law andlegislation.

1

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

Internet Law and RegulationModule: M3111

Candidate Number: 107095Word Count: 2,996

Since 2014 ruling1, European citizens now have an alleged novel

‘right’- the ‘right to be forgotten’.2 This controversial ruling stems

from the decision made in Google Spain v AEPD [2010]3 to allow

an individual to allow an individual to move on with their

lives without being “perpetually or periodically stigmatised as a consequence

of a specific action performed in the past”.4 Citizens now have the right to

request internet search engines to remove links to potentially

damaging or irrelevant information from its search results,

even where the publication of information is lawful.5 Such1 Google Spain SL v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja Gonzalez (C-131/12) [2014] Q.B. 1022 (ECJ) (Grand Chamber) 2 House of Lords, EU Committee Second Report. (2014) EU Data Protectionlaw: a ‘right to be forgotten’? London. www.parliament.uk Available from, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/40/4002.htm [accessed 19th March 2015]3 Information Commissioner’s Office blog. (2014) Four things we’ve learnedfrom the EU Google judgement. Available from,https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/four-things-weve-learned-from-the-eu-google-judgment/ [accessed 19th March 2015] 4 Google Spain SL, op.cit., n.1 5 Ibid

2

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

ruling clearly points out that we are not dealing with

removing defamatory statements, libel or hate speech made

online. This stems from the interests pursued by the 1995

European Data Protection law6, in enhancing individuals’

control over their own personal data. There are worries,

however, as to whether this judgement reflects too much

enthusiasm towards protecting the rights to privacy and data

protection, under Article 8 European Convention of Human

Rights (ECHR).7 Does this, as many US academics 8would argue,

potential stifle freedom of expression? When assessing how far

the legal muscles of this right can stretch, alongside

jurisdictional, censorship issues that subsequently flow from

the 2014 ruling, it can be argued this right has the capacity

in putting the EU on a collision course with the US where

online freedom of expression are potentially violated. Ongoing

scholastic debate however cautions that if overused, this

right will continue to grow towards a direction of

6 95/46/EC- European Data Protection Directive of the European Parliamentand the Council [1995]7 Article 8 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)8 Witzled, N, Lindsay, D, Paterson, M & Rodrick, S. (2014) EmergingChallenges in Privacy Law: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge UniversityPress. p.57

3

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

trivialisation.9 Removing information that is legitimately in

the public interest may breach the right of freedom of

expression under Article 10 ECHR. But when examining the

procedural application of this right, it is possible to argue

in this essay that in its current embryonic form, a total

‘affront’ to freedom of expression has not yet materialised.

Scope and language of the ruling itself – not an affront to

freedom of speech

Whilst the Costeja ruling has now acknowledged greater

protection of an individual’s right to privacy under Article

810, its scope and language poses misconstrued connotations.

Rosen points out this ruling marks a significant turning

point. Individuals now have the capacity to effectively

“trump” 11Article 10 through the removal of online legitimate

sources by search engines of information that is “inadequate,

9 Kulk, S & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F, J. (2014) “Google Spain v Gonzalez:Did the Court Forget About Freedom of Expression?” European Journal of RiskRegulation. 1(1) 1-13 10 Tech Times. (2015) Google: Right to be Forgotten Does no Go Beyond EUbut Open to Review. Available from,http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27499/20150120/google-right-to-be-forgotten-does-not-go-beyond-eu-but-open-to-review.htm [accessed 22nd March2015] 11 Rosen, J. (2012) “The Right to be Forgotten”. Stanford Law Review. 64(1)pg. 89

4

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

inaccurate or no longer relevant”. 12Such subjective ruling stems from

the nature of the claim concerning Costeja Gonzalez in this

case. Costeja sought the removal of past information relating

to the foreclosure of his home when he typed in his name onto

Google.13 This was based on the grounds that this breached the

fundamental right of privacy under the ECHR. The court held

Google would be “subject to data protection legislation” 14when granting

Gonzalez the right to have this lawful past information of him

removed by Google. In doing so, increasing anxieties have now

emerged 15as to whether floodgates of claims will, at some

future point, overload the courts. Are trivialised take down

procedures now becoming the default? However, it can be

inferred from these specific unique set of facts that this

right should not be applied in all cases. The information

related to Costeja was involved his past debts which had now

been paid and was over 10 years old.16 Dean rightly argues this

12 Google Spain SL, op.cit., n. 1 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Tech Crunch. (2014) Jimmy Wales Blasts Europe’s “Right to be Forgotten”Ruling as a “Terrible Danger.” Available from,http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/07/wales-on-right-to-be-forgotten/ [accessed20th March 2015] 16 Google Spain SL, op.cit., n. 1

5

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

decision is fair.17 Where privacy is at stake individuals

should effectively enjoy a ‘right to move on’ from their past.

Who exactly can ‘move on’ and under what circumstance?

Determination of this has now become a bigger problem on the

data protection agenda. Google may now be losing control in

spinning its roulette wheel when attempting to reconcile this

vagueness with what we consider to be a ‘right’ within a

democratic society. As the European court continues to police

their reticence on what kinds of information are now subject

to this new ruling18, this has led to a somewhat inconsistent

application by internet search engines. This right invokes the

potential dimension to allow everyday users to have even

embarrassing Facebook comments that they have made in the past

to be removed. What about ex-convicts? Should this right now

extend to protect individuals who have served a penalty to

finally be able to recover and contribute to society? Can it

be morally justified that a person should attempt to eradicate

this social stigma attached to them? Even if attempted, can

17 Dean, J. (2015) “Google faces battle with regulator over right to beforgotten.” The Financial Times. 1(1) 3-618 Legal Week. (2014) The ‘right to be forgotten’ case- Google right thistime, ECJ hopelessly wrong. Available from, http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2346341/the-right-to-be-forgotten-case-google-right-this-time-ecj-hopelessly-wrong [accessed 22nd March 2015]

6

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

this right even ever achieve serve such a purpose? Google’s

transparency report19 further supplements this lacuna in the

law. Since the launch of its official request process, the

right has been predominantly exercised to remove URLs from

Facebook and Profile Engine.20 This is inherently problematic

because as academics like White 21submits this is a further

violation of free speech. Under English common law, Bingham LJ

stresses the importance to “publish free of unjustifiable restraint” which

should “be recognised as a distinguishing feature of the sort of society which the

Convention seeks to promote.”22 However, where the UK acknowledges

freedom of the press if it is in the public interest to

publish certain kinds of things, others across Europe may have

different views as to what is relevant or irrelevant about

their pasts. Therefore, it can be argued that the subjective

determination exercised by Google as to what can effectively

be forgotten is the only option so far in sustaining this

19 Google Transparency Report. European privacy removals requests for searchremovals. Available from,http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/?hl=en[accessed 22nd March 2015]20 Ibid (It is important to note that the number of URL’s removed fromFacebook = 6459 and those removed from Profile Engine= 5868, which were inthe top 10% of sites subject to this removals request) 21 White, A. (2014) “European Union: Google starts removing search resultsafter ECJ’s right to be forgotten ruling.” World Data Protection Report. 14(7) p. 29 22 Jameel & Another v Wall Street Journal Europe (No.2) [2006] UKHL 44 at para 2

7

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

right’s viability. As the language of the ruling is open to

flexible interpretation, this falls in line with the

fundamental objectives of EU harmonisation. Principally

creating a level playing field with rules that can work for 28

independent nations within the EU.

Procedural mechanisms- potential censorship issues?

“He who control the past, controls the future”... 23

Orwell’s famous phrase underpins the likely effects which may

flow where a handful of private organisations have effectively

been ‘awarded’ the key to our online collective memories. Where

Google are now classified as judge, jury and executioner in

applying this right, Womack24 worries its procedural mechanisms

are of greater concern. Categorisation of private internet

intermediaries as “data controllers”25 marks a watershed as they are

now subject to liability the European Data Protection

Directive. This reluctantly forces internet intermediaries to

become engrossed in a ‘public interest’ assessment.26 However, the

23 Orwell, G. (2014) 1984: Ninteen Eighty Four. Penguin Books. p. 71 24 Bass, D, Womack, B & Frier S. (2014) “United States: Google, Microsoftface flood of requests following EU right to be forgotten ruling.” WorldCommunications Regulations Report. 9 (6) 24-25 25 Google Spain SL, op.cit., n. 126 European Commission. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (March2014). Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the

8

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

problem is not necessarily the fact that the search engines

themselves have to engage in this balancing act, it is more

about who exactly within the company is exercising their

discretion. It is likely that interns, who may lack the

competence, are now the ones having to jump into muddy waters

where central issues of public policy are at heart. Evidence

from Google’s transparency report, where 41.4% of the URLS

have been removed,27 serve to highlight this paradoxical

dilemma. Aren’t employees too hastily removing links that

should not, when properly assessed, be subject to the right to

be forgotten? The fundamental flaw premises on the fact that

we cannot fill a hole in the Swiss cheese. Essentially, if

Google makes a mistake through interpreting this right too

broadly, then it may result in links being taken out of the

internet, which may never be able to be restored back again.

Indeed, at surface level this lends itself well as an ‘affront’ to

Article 10. But where there is currently a lack of case law,

examining further underlying mechanisms would suggest

European Union Judgement on “Google Spain and Inc v Agencia Espanola DeProteccion De Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Conzalez” C-131/12. Availablefrom,http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf [accessed 17th March 2015] 27 Op.cit., n. 19

9

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

otherwise. Under the exercise, the internet search engine

should inform the original content publisher of the any links

that they have removed from their index. 28Irony however exists

because where for instance this original publisher is The

Telegraph and links have been removed, this news page then puts

out a notice29 to inform the public of the content of

information that Google has deleted because of privacy issues.

By drawing such attention, this action highlights the initial

privacy issues that individuals are fretful with in the first

place. In this sense, it cannot be possible to argue that

individuals can entirely control their pasts through a re-

writing of internet history. The fame that Costeja has

received as a result of the 2010 case provides re-affirmation

of this. Anyone who wants to find out about what the right to

be forgotten involves will automatically stumble upon

Costeja’s previous financial troubles, as the ground-breaking

28 The Financial Times. (2015) Google panel backs limits on ‘right to beforgotten’. Available from,http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14ca7020-ad70-11e4-97c1-00144feab7de.html#axzz3VQcSDgL2 [accessed 22nd March 2015] 29 The Telegraph. (2015) Telegraph stories affected by EU ‘right toforgotten’. Available from,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegraph-stories-affected-by-EU-right-to-be-forgotten.html [accessed 31st March 2015] (Thisprovides a full comprehensive list of the content removed from Googlesearch results)

10

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

ruling stems from this case. Rather than a right to be

‘forgotten’, individuals are actually in fact ‘remembered’. Although

Google bear responsibility of exercising take-down procedures,

links are still present on the original publisher’s site. La

Vanguardia for example maintained their right under Article 1030

because if decided otherwise, further criticism would draw

upon their limitations of free expression.31 In addition, the

appeals procedure additionally supports the view that there

has not yet been such violation. Where Google fails to approve

of removals requests, individuals can now appeal to the data

protection authority for a reversal of this. 32 In reality

though, this process is lengthy. Individuals may not wish to

go through such a complex procedure, so past information may

still remain available online. Although the ruling has opened

up ‘Pandora’s box’,33 it is still however too early to decipher how

far it will extend in violating freedom of expression because

30 Google Spain SL, op.cit., n.1 31 Salgado, M. (2014) “Internet of Things revisited.” Privacy and DataProtection Journals. 6(11) 7-9 32 European Commission. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (Nov2014). Press Release. Available from,http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/pressrelease/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf [accessed 22nd March 2015] 33 Ghezzi, A, Pereira, A & Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2014) The Ethics of Memoryin a Digital Age: Interrogating the Right to be Forgotten. PalgraveMacmillan. p. 83

11

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

of the lack of full judicial, regulatory and Google’s

engagement with this public interest concern.

Enforcement capabilities by the EU- jurisdictional issues

To this day, failure remains in ascertaining whether Google

would be justified in limiting itself to specific websites and

countries. Where these ‘grey’ areas spring up, scholastic

debates have shifted in asking how far can, (or more

accurately so) should the EU go in requiring Google to

implement this right? Chiang now argues the bigger questions

are now about its territorial reach.34 Should the EU afford

greater extension of the right to privacy by ‘acting globally’

rather than staying within its current locally limited

constraints? At present, the enforcement capacity limits

modification of results to only the ‘European versions’ of search

engines. 35 Where so, the right to be forgotten can be argued

as fundamentally restrictive in scope because, in practice,

its geo-filtering instruments lack iron clad characteristics.

One of the most significant restrictions rests on the fact

that Google still allows EU users to switch to the .com

34 Chiang, A. (2014) “Right to be forgotten: global implications.” PrivacyLaws & Business International Newsletter. 130 (1) 18-19 35 Op.cit., n. 32

12

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

version. 36The right to be forgotten, as it stands, does not

currently extend to remove links on the .com version and other

non-European domain addresses. 37As a result, personal

information that should be protected from the public domain

remains alive. Users can simply click a button at the bottom

of the page to freely navigate to other country specific

versions of the search engines. 38More so, where an individual

has enough time and money, it is easier to circumvent the

restrictions imposed under the right to be forgotten by

relying on tools such as a proxy server39 to facilitate access

to sites outside of the European jurisdiction.

36 Brown, I & Marsden, C. (2013). Regulating Code: Good Governance andBetter Regulation in the Information Age. Massachusetts Institution ofTechnology. p. 7337 Phys. (2014) Japan court orders Google to delete data. Available from,file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/2014-10-japan-court-google-delete.pdf[accessed 20th March 2015]

38 Computer Weekly. (2014) Google, privacy and data protection: One stepbeyond (the law)? Available from,http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Google-Privacy-and-Data-Protection-One-Step-Beyond-the-Law [accessed 21st March 2015] 39 Microsoft. Support. How to configure Internet Explorer to use proxy server? Available from, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/135982 [accessed 22nd March 2015]

13

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

In order to afford greater under Article 8, Kuner40 and

McGoldrick41 suggest there should be territorial extension of

this right. This may be the only way to ensure “effective and

complete” 42protection of European data subjects. Legal

precedents43 engaging in both private and public international

law provide some useful framework in assessing the scope of

extra-territorial European data law. Particularly, fundamental

principles from litigation in the Yahoo! 44case provide us with

further guidelines. It can be argued that the approach taken

by the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) serves as authority

to highlight that any attempt to see the right to be forgotten

in another jurisdiction would most likely fail. An emphasis on

territorial limitations was placed in justifying on public

international law principles that “[a] basic function of a sovereign state

is to determine by law what forms of speech and conduct are acceptable within its

40 Kuner, C. (2014) “The Court of Justice of the EU Judgement on the DataProtection and Internet Search Engines: Current Issues and FutureChallenges.” Available from, Social Science Research Network,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2496060 [accessed 19th

March 2015]41 McGoldrick, D. (2013) “Developments in the Right to be Forgotten.”. HumanRights Law Review. 13(1) 761-77642 Ustaran, E. (2014) “The wider effect of the ‘right to be forgotten’case”. Privacy and Data Protection Journals. 8 (1) 8-9 43 Matusevitch v Telnikoff, [1995] 877 F Supp 1 (DDC) and Bachchan v India Abroad Publications Inc [1992] 585 NYS 2d 661- both being held as libel under UK jurisdiction, but this did not extend to the US. 44 Yahoo! Inc v La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme (2001) 145 F. Supp. 2d 1168(ND Cal) (US)

14

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

borders.” 45 If the TGI had ordered Yahoo! to stop displaying its

pages globally, this would have impeded on the sovereignty of

other states. Application of this decision can be interpreted

in light of Google’s ubiquitous presence.46 ‘Forget Me’ 47removals

requests should only apply where this ‘think locally’ 48approach is

maintained. With this continuing limited enforcement

capacity, the extent in which this right is an ‘affront’ to free

speech remains fragmentarily disjointed. As this right has

only recently come into force, how far this may curtail

Article 10 would ultimately depend on how far European

regulators would be willing to push the 2014 ruling in the

upcoming future. Failure of a universal extension has

presently left us at a fork in the road- a war between the

“paladins of privacy” 49and press freedom.

Expansion of this right across the US jurisdiction? 45 Ibid 46 Chandler, A, Gelman, L & Radin, M.J. (2008). Securing Privacy in theInternet Age. Standford University Press. 47 forget.me removals request form available at, https://forget.me/signup[accessed 22nd March 2015] 48 Overstraeten, V. T. and Cumbley, R. (2014) “Do the EU Article 29 WorkingParty guidelines on implementing the Google Spain’s decision give “theright to be forgotten” global reach?” World Data Protection Report. 14 (12)8-10 49 Papacharissi, Z. A. (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age.Cambridge University Press. p.26

15

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

Despite the Article 29 Working Party guidelines 50(limiting

European data protection capabilities), the rhetoric

surrounding the limitations of this right can be maintained

where the US consider the 2014 ruling to be a “travesty”. 51 In

its aftermath, recent debate confirms 56% of Americans voting

against extension to include the US google.com site.52 This

suggests that even in the near future, foreign judgements will

not be recognised to be compatible with US free speech

principles. Part of this rests on the notion that “if you have

nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear”. 53 This runs parallel to

the justifications, following Snowden revelations,54 of

increased surveillance by the US National Security Agency

(NSA) where data protection laws are concerned. Strong

50 Op.cit., n. 32 and European Commission. Article 29 Data ProtectionWorking Party, (2008) Opinion 1/2008 on data protection issues related tosearch engines. Available from,http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2008/wp148_en.pdf[accessed 22nd March 2015] 51 Gstrein, J, O. (2015) “The cascade of decaying information: putting the“right to be forgotten” in perspective.” Computer and TelecommunicationsLaw Review. 21 (2) 40-48 52 Intelligence Debates. (2015) “Debate: Should the U.S. Adopt The ‘Right ToBe Forgotten Online’? Broadcast version of the debate can be found at, http://www.npr.org/2015/03/18/393643901/debate-should-the-u-s-adopt-the-right-to-be-forgotten-online [accessed 20th March 2015]53 Solove, J, D. (2011) Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security. Yale University Press. p. 23 54 The Guardian. (The NSA Files: Decoded) Edward Snowden’s surveillance revelations explained. Available from, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files [accessed 20th March 2015]

16

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

consensus maintains the view that information available online

is part of the public record. Imposing such kind of right

would inevitably tamper with this. Where Google holds a 67.4%

market share55 in this jurisdiction, it controls access to

67.4% of public records. But why should Google hold power of

control over these public records? And where it does, wouldn’t

forcibly imposing this right reverse Google’s power?

Backlash from US academics56 clutch on a robust view in arguing

that the EU have no right to interfere over the anatomy of an

American company’s internet policies. The ‘so-called’ right, is

indeed a passive construction because it is viewed as a poor

solution to an on-going complex problem. If the right is

extended in the US, metaphoric black-holes will continue to

transcend into missing pieces in the chronology of internet

history. Extension will result in an ‘affront’ as it insists on a

duty to force other people to forget what they would otherwise

remember. What’s more is the acknowledgement of ‘the right to be

55 Search Engine Watch. (2014) Google Search Engine Market Shares Near 68%. Available from, http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/study/2345837/google-search-engine-market-share-nears-68 [accessed 20th March 2015] 56 Zittrain, J. (2008) The Future of the Internet- And How to Stop It. YaleUniversity Press. p. 54

17

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

forgotten’ as being increasingly compared to that of ‘censorship’. 57

Though, where a lack of court mechanism in adjudicating this

right and an inconsistent understanding as to what being

‘forgotten’ still remains, it is hard to argue this. In practice,

censorship has a high bar which must be met.58 Nonetheless,

where parallels are drawn between this above actions, perhaps

invoking a ‘right to respond’ (in allowing a toppling of more

speech) can trump the ‘right to censor’. This theory can now be seen

in practice through analysing the adaptable ways in which the

internet responds to information posted through online means.

There is now a rise of applications such as Snapchat 59being

utilised to facilitate communications without information

being permanently compiled and assembled. Such shows

alternative US methods of circumvention around the issues of

freedom and privacy, rather than scrubbing past mistakes and

errors through the exercise of the ECJ ruling.

57 Fishleigh, J. (2015) “Is someone watching you? Data privacy andprotection: current issues”. Legal Information Management. 15 (1) 61-6958 Ibid 59 Global Web Index. (2015) Snapchat was the fastest growing social app of2014. Available from, http://www.globalwebindex.net/blog/snapchat-was-the-fastest-growing-social-app-of-2014 [accessed 21st March 2015]

18

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

Right to be forgotten- legal fiction rather than a legal

friction?

Fundamentally, there is an inherently paradoxical problem of

attempting utilise this ‘right to be forgotten’ against the backdrop

that the “internet never forgets”. 60 In light of the present ‘digital

age’,61 the internet is now a mechanism which has the ability in

both tarnishing a person’s reputation and changing the

perceptions of society in how they respond to certain kinds of

information posted online. Stokes draws attention to the fact

that the right to be forgotten is such a terrible solution

because it conflicts with the rhetoric ‘right to remember’62.

Further gaps in internet history may widen to allow

individuals to manipulate society, directing them towards an

uncertain certain goal of what is true or false. However, in

its present form the right is still embryonic. When taking

into account the flawed procedural mechanisms and its limited

jurisdiction, the right has however not fully stifled free60 Schonberger, V, M. (2011). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in theDigital Age. Princeton University Press. p. 8 61 Schmidt, E & Cohen, J. (2013) The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Futureof People, Nations and Business. Hachette Press. 62 Stokes, S. (2014) “A decision to quickly forget: Google Spain and Google on the right to be forgotten.” Entertainment Law Review. 27(2) 233-235.

19

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

speech. In order to maintain this rhetoric, perhaps Google’s

current limited subjective exercise63 should continue to

constrain this possibility. However, it has been less than a

year since this right has come into force. Thus, it is

difficult to still assess the ramifications that may flow from

trivialisation. Conceivably having some kind of court

mechanism may correctly address the balance between the

protection of privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

A court may actually understand the legal technical jargon and

may make decisions based on whether removing certain links to

information would be in the best interest of the public, in

which Google or other intermediaries cannot. If not, perhaps

a re-assessment of this term is needed. Should the internet

instead be allowed to forgive? Or maybe a re-labelling as a

‘right to obscure certain kinds of information’ in order to truly complement

freedom of speech.

63 Google. Search removal request under data protection law in Europe. Available from, https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch&hl=en [accessed 17th March 2015]

20

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

Bibliography

21

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

I. Academic journals

1) Bass, D, Womack, B & Frier S. (2014) “United States:

Google, Microsoft face flood of requests following EU

right to be forgotten ruling.” World Communications

Regulations Report. 9 (6) 24-25

2) Chiang, A. (2014) “Right to be forgotten: global

implications.” Privacy Laws & Business International

Newsletter. 130 (1) 18-19

3) Dean, J. (2015) “Google faces battle with regulator over

right to be forgotten.” The Financial Times. 1(1) 3-6

4) Fishleigh, J. (2015) “Is someone watching you? Data

privacy and protection: current issues”. Legal

Information Management. 15 (1) 61-69

5) Gstrein, J, O. (2015) “The cascade of decaying

information: putting the “right to be forgotten” in

perspective.” Computer and Telecommunications Law Review.

21 (2) 40-48

6) Kulk, S & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F, J. (2014) “Google

Spain v Gonzalez: Did the Court Forget About Freedom of

Expression?” European Journal of Risk Regulation.22

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

Available from, Social Science Research Network,

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=2491486&rec=1&srcabs=2496060&alg=1&pos=1.

[accessed 20th March 2015]

7) Kuner, C. (2014) “The Court of Justice of the EU

Judgement on the Data Protection and Internet Search

Engines: Current Issues and Future Challenges. Available

from Social Science Research Network,

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=2496060 [accessed 19th March 2015]

8) McGoldrick, D. (2013) “Developments in the Right to be

Forgotten.” Vol. 13. Human Rights Law Review. 13 (4) 761-

776.

9) Overstraeten, V. T. and Cumbley, R. (2014) “Do the EU

Article 29 Working Party guidelines on implementing the

Google Spain’s decision give “the right to be forgotten”

global reach?” World Data Protection Report. 14 (12) 8-10

10) Rosen, J. (2012) “The Right to be Forgotten”. Stanford

Law Review. 64 (3) 88-92.

23

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

11) Salgado, M. (2014) “Internet of Things revisited. Privacy

and Data Protection Journals. 6 (11) 7-9

12) Stokes, S. (2014) “A decision to quickly forget: Google

Spain and Google on the right to be forgotten.” Vol 27.

Entertainment Law Review. 233-235. Available from

Westlaw. [accessed 18th March 2015]

13) Ustaran, E. (2014) “The wider effect of the ‘right to be

forgotten’ case”. Privacy and Data Protection Journals.

14 (8) 8-9 Available from Westlaw. [accessed 20th March

2015]

14) White, A. (2014) “European Union: Google starts removing

search results after ECJ’s right to be forgotten ruling.”

World Data Protection Report. 14 (7) 29

II. Books

24

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

1) Brown, I & Marsden, C. (2013). Regulating Code: Good

Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age.

Massachusetts Institution of Technology.

2) Chandler, A, Gelman, L & Radin, M.J. (2008). Securing

Privacy in the Internet Age. Standford University Press.

3) Ghezzi, A, Pereira, A & Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2014) The

Ethics of Memory in a Digital Age: Interrogating the

Right to be Forgotten. Palgrave Macmillan.

4) Orwell, G. (2014) 1984: Ninteen Eighty Four. Penguin

Books.

5) Papacharissi, Z. A. (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in

a Digital Age. Cambridge University Press.

6) Schmidt, E & Cohen, J. (2013) The New Digital Age:

Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business.

Hachette Press.

7) Solove, J, D. (2011) Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff

Between Privacy and Security. Yale University Press.

25

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

8) Schonberger, V, M. (2011). Delete: The Virtue of

Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University

Press.

9) Witzled, N, Lindsay, D, Paterson, M & Rodrick, S. (2014)

Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law: Comparative

Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

10) Zittrain, J. (2008) The Future of the Internet- And

How to Stop It. Yale University Press.

III. Case List

1) Bachchan v India Abroad Publications Inc [1992] 585 NYS 2d 661

2) Google Spain SL v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD), Mario

Costeja Gonzalez (C-131/12) [2014] Q.B. 1022 (ECJ) (Grand

Chamber)

3) Jameel & Another v Wall Street Journal Europe (No.2) [2006] UKHL

44

4) Matusevitch v Telnikoff, [1995] 877 F Supp 1 (DDC)

5) UEJF and LICRA v. Yahoo! and Yahoo France [2000] No. 00/05308

IV. Legislation/ Statute

26

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

1) Article 8 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)

2) Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)

3) 95/46/EC- European Data Protection Directive of the

European Parliament and the Council [1995]

4) UK Data Protection Act [1998]

V. Reports

1) European Commission. Article 29 Data Protection Working

Party. (March 2014). Guidelines on the Implementation of

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgement on

“Google Spain and Inc v Agencia Espanola De Proteccion De

Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Conzalez” C-131/12.

Available from, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-

protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-

recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf [accessed 17th

March 2015]

2) European Commission. Article 29 Data Protection Working

Party. (Nov 2014). Press Release. Available from,

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/pr

ess-material/press-release/art29_press_material/

27

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf [accessed

22nd March 2015]

3) Google Transparency Report. European privacy removals

requests for search removals. Available from,

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/

europeprivacy/?hl=en [accessed 22nd March 2015]

4) House of Lords, EU Committee Second Report. (2014) EU

Data Protection law: a ‘right to be forgotten’? London.

www.parliament.uk Available from,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselec

t/ldeucom/40/4002.htm [accessed 19th March 2015]

VI. Webpages

1) Computer Weekly. (2014) Google, privacy and data

protection: One step beyond (the law)? Available from,

http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Google-Privacy-and-

Data-Protection-One-Step-Beyond-the-Law [accessed 21st

March 2015]

28

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

2) The Financial Times. (2015) Google panel backs limits on

‘right to be forgotten’. Available

from,http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14ca7020-ad70-11e4-97c1-

00144feab7de.html#axzz3VQcSDgL2 [accessed 22nd March 2015]

3) forget.me removals request form available at,

https://forget.me/signup [accessed 22nd March 2015]

4) Google. Search removal request under data protection law

in Europe. Available from,

https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?

product=websearch&hl=en [accessed 17th March 2015]

5) Google. European privacy requests for search removals.

Available from,

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europep

rivacy/?hl=en-US [accessed 17th March 2015]

6) Global Web Index. (2015) Snapchat was the fastest growing

social app of 2014. Available from,

http://www.globalwebindex.net/blog/snapchat-was-the-

fastest-growing-social-app-of-2014 [accessed 21st March

2015]

29

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

7) The Guardian. (The NSA Files: Decoded) Edward Snowden’s

surveillance revelations explained. Available from,

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files

[accessed 20th March 2015]

8) Information Commissioner’s Office blog. (2014) Four

things we’ve learned from the EU Google judgement.

Available from,

https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/four-things-

weve-learned-from-the-eu-google-judgment/ [accessed 19th

March 2015]

9) Intelligence Debates. (2015) “Debate: Should the U.S.

Adopt The ‘Right To Be Forgotten Online’? Broadcast

version of the debate can be found at,

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/18/393643901/debate-should-

the-u-s-adopt-the-right-to-be-forgotten-online [accessed

20th March 2015]

10) Legal Week. (2014) The ‘right to be forgotten’ case-

Google right this time, ECJ hopelessly wrong. Available

from,

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2346341/the

30

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

-right-to-be-forgotten-case-google-right-this-time-ecj-

hopelessly-wrong [accessed 22nd March 2015]

11) Microsoft. Support. How to configure Internet

Explorer to use proxy server? Available from,

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/135982 [accessed

22nd March 2015]

12) Phys. (2014) Japan court orders Google to delete

data. Available from,

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/2014-10-japan-court-

google-delete.pdf [accessed 20th March 2015]

13) Search Engine Watch. (2014) Google Search Engine

Market Shares Near 68%. Available from,

http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/study/2345837/google-

search-engine-market-share-nears-68 [accessed 20th March

2015]

14) Tech Crunch. (2014) Jimmy Wales Blasts Europe’s

“Right to be Forgotten” Ruling as a “Terrible Danger.”

Available from, http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/07/wales-

on-right-to-be-forgotten/ [accessed 20th March 2015]

31

107095 M3111: Internet Law and Regulation Word Count: 2,996

15) Tech Times. (2015) Google: Right to be Forgotten

Does no Go Beyond EU but Open to Review. Available from,

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27499/20150120/google-

right-to-be-forgotten-does-not-go-beyond-eu-but-open-to-

review.htm [accessed 22nd March 2015]

16) The Telegraph. (2015) Telegraph stories affected by

EU ‘right to forgotten’. Available from,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Tel

egraph-stories-affected-by-EU-right-to-be-forgotten.html

[accessed 31st March 2015]

32