The right to be forgotten – a Dutch perspective

This paper will be investigate to what extent the right to be forgotten as proposed by the European Commission is already recognized in Dutch tort law. The focus of this paper will be on the existence and the desirability of such a right and not on questions of enforcement. It is submitted that although Dutch law does not recognize the right to be forgotten as such, several judicial decisions can be identified that afford protection to interests that are also protected by the proposed right to be forgotten. This indicates that in the Netherlands a right to be forgotten in some form or another might have developed over time but this would have been a lengthy affair. A more precise formulation of this right by the legislator is therefore welcomed. It has been remarked that the name ‘right to be forgotten’ may give rise to unrealistic expectations but the Dutch experience shows that people do not seem to be very aware of their rights. ‘A right to be forgotten’ – however imprecise from a legal viewpoint – might be catchy enough to remedy this.     

被遗忘权立法的美国模式及其立法启示——以加州被遗忘权立法为研究背景

“被遗忘权”是大数据时代个人信息删除制度的立法新发展。美国并不赞同欧盟模式的被遗忘权。加利福尼亚州立足美国法制传统构建了一个体现美国利益需求的被遗忘权。加州立法从维护个人发展权意义上建构未成年人的被遗忘权,以数据最小化原则为基础,建构适用于消费者与企业之间数据处理的被遗忘权,赋予个人删除本人发布的个人信息的权利,同时规定了一系列删除信息的例外,较好地协调了被遗忘权与言论自由和信息经济发展的矛盾。加州立法已成为美国个人信息保护立法的典范。未来,美国可能以加州模式为模板构建媲美欧盟被遗忘权的个人信息删除制度。加州对被遗忘权制度的取舍对我国《个人信息保护法》第47条的理解与适用具有启示意义。     

信息自由与网络监管的法理分析

以互联网为基础载体的网络信息传播,极大限度地维护了公民的言论自由、表达自由、知情权、监督权等的实现,但同时网络信息的匿名性、无序性、任意性的传播特点也为滥用表达自由、言论自由提供了最近场所,并因此对公共利益、国家利益和私人利益造成强烈冲击,导致多元化权益损害问题日益突出。网民在充分享有网络信息自由的同时,履行维护网络秩序、维护国家信息安全和公共秩序安全的义务,是一个行为的两方面。从法学理论的角度讲,网络信息自由与网络监管有度限制信息自由辩证统一,协调二者的平衡是信息时代各国政府面临的重大法律治理问题。     

The right to be forgotten – private law enforcement

Private law enforcement of the right to be forgotten should be considered in light of the general characteristics of private law. This highlights advantages and limitations, and underlines the need to explicate the actual interests involved in the right to be forgotten. As case law and real-life examples show, enforcement is mostly feasible but may be costly. The right to be forgotten is most effective against large, bona fide corporations. This analysis provides a more realistic view of the possibilities of private law enforcement of newly proclaimed rights.     

Germany's ‘Right to be forgotten’ – between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination

Although never having defined it explicitly, German law and jurisprudence imparted a right to be forgotten which could be described as a right to delete long ago. Its basis can be found in the constitution where it is torn between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination. Also, German legislature introduced non-constitutional provisions ensuring the deletion of personal data in specific cases that are applied regularly. This article aims to give an overview of the “German” right to be forgotten, its legal framework and its application in court.     

The Singapore Personal Data Protection Act and an assessment of future trends in data privacy reform

In the first part of this paper, I will present and explain the Singapore Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”) in the context of legislative developments in the Asian region and against the well-established international baseline privacy standards. In the course of the above evaluation, reference will be made to the national laws and policy on data privacy prior to the enactment of the PDPA as well as current social and market practices in relation to personal data. In the second part of this paper, I will decipher and assess the future trends in data privacy reform and the future development of the privacy regime in Singapore and beyond. In the course of this analysis, international standards, technological trends and recent legal developments in other jurisdictions will be considered.     

美国信息隐私立法透析

美国法以隐私权作为个人信息保护的权利基础,在公领域,实行分散立法模式;在私领域,美国选择了行业自律模式,在全球个人信息保护立法中产生了巨大的影响。美国制定信息隐私保护政策和法律的基本思路是力求在信息流通和隐私保护之间寻求平衡。信息隐私权是美国信息隐私法上的一个核心概念,它是随着社会对个人信息的保护而产生的,指个人针对其信息所享有决定权、支配权和控制权。     

The right to be forgotten: The Israeli version

The right to be forgotten and erase, originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spain, has caused considerable legal debates on both theoretical and procedural issues. The Israeli Supreme Court has also just recently considered the issue when it was asked to enforce the right to be forgotten of an Israeli advocate, Jonathan Miller, and delist harmful information which appeared in a Google search, and was in truth related to a different adv. Jonathan Miller. The plaintiff relied on the Israeli Prohibition of Defamation Law. Liability was denied on the basis that the information was indeed true, and thus- justified. We suggest in this article that the court should have imposed liability in negligence, an open ended general tort that mainly applies when particular torts fail to supply a reasonable and just solution in new factual situations due to change in social, economic and technological circumstances.     

论民法典中人格权的实证概念

尽管我国民法典以独立成编的方式规定了人格权,但是,由于对人格权的概念存在巨大争议,所以,从民法典人格权编的具体内容和规范来反观人格权的实证概念对于理论研究和司法实践更具有意义。从我国民法典的内容看,我国民法典人格权编实际上包括了两个部分:一是对人格权的保护,二是对人格尊严的保护。隐私权与信息的二元保护就清楚地说明了这一问题。因此,不能认为人格权编中保护的都是人格权。必须把人格权的概念与人格利益区分开来,从而决定其保护程度与救济措施的差别。另外,从表面上看,虽然看起来都是相同的权利(人格权),但是,法人和非法人组织的人格权与自然人的人格权建立在完全不同或者说完全不相关的基础之上--自然人的人格权是以人的自由和尊严为核心的,而法人或者非法人组织的所谓人格权完全是技术处理的结果。当然,这种处理方式也可以通过其他方式处理。荣誉权无论从哪个方面看,都不具有人格权的特征;虽然民法典对其予以了明确规定,但是,荣誉权确实不应该是人身自由和人格尊严的表现,我们在实践中应当将其作为一种特殊权利对待。总之,人格权可以定义为:自然人享有的人之所以为人的主体性权利,包括生命权、身体权、健康权、姓名权、肖像权、名誉权、荣誉权、隐私权等权利,是个人自由、尊严在民法上的具体体现。法人仅仅享有与自由和尊严无关的名称权、荣誉权和名誉权,但法人的名称权、荣誉权和名誉权在实质上不是人格权。     

突发公共卫生事件中位置数据的披露:基于健康权和隐私权的视角

位置数据披露在防控新冠病毒(COVID-19)等传染病期间在国家、公共卫生机构及个人层面具有三重价值、成效显赫;但也暴露出健康权与隐私权之间的内在张力.全球范围内存在三种位置数据披露模式:一是模糊地理数据披露模式,即向所有公众公开仅涉及概括性、脱敏性的位置数据信息;二是对特定人群信息披露模式,针对可能的密切接触者等特定...     

Information Privacy Protection in the New Chinese Civil Code: Priority or Replacement?

The right to privacy has been developed through judicial practice and has evolved from “the protection of the right to reputation” to “privacy interest” then to “privacy right.” The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (2020) clarifies the right to information privacy and the right to personal information as two independent personality rights and establishes a privacy priority protection mechanism for private information in civil law. The comparative efficiency of the right to personal information may mean that the protection of the right to information privacy is weakened or even replaced by the right to personal information. The uncertainty and fragmentation of private information also creates a wide gray space for judicial decisions. The development from traditional privacy right to information privacy right and personal information right is generally positive and shows the active legal response to the protection of private information in multiple ways. However, clarifications and systematization are required to increase the effectiveness of such protections.     

论隐私权的刑法保护

隐私权的刑法保护顺应了我国保护人权的发展趋势;体现了我国刑法由"国家主义"向"人本主义"的转变;符合防治严重侵犯隐私权行为的客观要求.我国刑法典保护隐私权的相关规定缺乏系统性和科学性,具有间接性.建议我国刑法设立"非法获取、散布隐私罪".     

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – Worth remembering?

In the last few years there has been a lot of buzz around a so-called ‘right to be forgotten’. Especially in Europe, this catchphrase is heavily debated in the media, in court and by regulators. Since a clear definition has not emerged (yet), the following article will try to raise the veil on this vague concept. The first part will weigh the right’s pros and cons against each other. It will appear that the ‘right to be forgotten’ clearly has merit, but needs better definition to avoid any negative consequences. As such, the right is nothing more than a way to give (back) individuals control over their personal data and make the consent regime more effective. The second part will then evaluate the potential implementation of the right. Measures are required at the normative, economical, technical, as well as legislative level. The article concludes by proposing a ‘right to be forgotten’ that is limited to data processing situations where the individual has given his or her consent. Combined with a public interest exception, this should (partially) restore the power balance and allow individuals a more effective control over their personal data.     

关于网络隐私权制度的几点思考

网络隐私权是网络环境下基于个人数据保护的需要而产生的一个新概念,围绕网络隐私权制度产生的问题众多,包括概念的界定、网络隐私权保护问题突出的根源、保护网络隐私权的意义与基本原则、各国和地区网络隐私权制度的趋同等,在对上述问题逐一进行探讨的基础上,就如何完善我国相关制度提出了几点建议.     

论我国基因信息不知情权的确立

基因信息对健康状况具有强烈的预测性,出于诸种原因当事人未必想知晓基因信息.为充分尊重自我决定权,比较法上承认权利人享有基因信息不知情权.基因信息不知情权指权利人有权预先决定是否接受基因信息的披露,其核心要义为“知情拒绝权”.基因信息不知情权旨在保障权利人对基因信息的自主控制,在我国隐私权与个人信息区分规制的立法模式下,...     

网络信息隐私权法律保护研究

网络信息隐私权是网络环境中产生的新问题.从隐私权涵义入手,阐述网络环境中隐私和隐私权的内容,分析国外网络信息隐私权保护现状,分析我国网络信息隐私权的保护情况,对法律保护模式及立法架构进行理性思考.     

政府信息公开与反公开的冲突及其消解

政府信息公开的本质就是保障公民的知情权。然而由于《政府信息公开条例》对个人隐私、商业秘密的概念、范围界定不明确,信息的价值属性,知情权与保密义务的矛盾等原因,使得政府信息公开与反公开的冲突在所难免。因此我们要适用人权保护、利益衡量、权利可克减、程序正当等原则;准确界定豁免公开的范围,建立信息安全、准确保障制度,完善信息豁免公开程序以及构建反公开诉讼机制,以合理有效地消解公开与反公开的冲突。