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
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