Έλεγχος συμμόρφωσης με τον Κανονισμό GDPR

by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορία

Ο νέος Γενικός Κανονισμός για την Προστασία Προσωπικών Δεδομένων (Κανονισμός 2016/679) θα τεθεί σε εφαρμογή την 25/5/2018.

Προβείτε άμεσα σε έλεγχο συμμόρφωσης και διαπιστώστε αν πρέπει να ορίσετε Υπεύθυνο Προστασίας Δεδομένων (DPO).

Το Γραφείο μας είναι εδώ για να σας βοηθήσει !

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3GmiPIKm9rxQ2ZRTUUzQ1ptcE0/view

 

 

 

Συμβουλευτική για τη συμμόρφωση επιχειρήσεων με τον νέο Γενικό Κανονισμό Προστασίας Προσωπικών Δεδομένων (Κανονισμός 2016/679)

by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορία

Ο νέος Γενικός Κανονισμός για την Προστασία Προσωπικών Δεδομένων (Κανονισμός 2016/679) πρόκειται να τεθεί σε εφαρμογή την 25/5/2018. Με τον νέο Κανονισμό, ρυθμίζεται η επεξεργασία προσωπικών δεδομένων κατά ενιαίο τρόπο σε όλη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και καταργείται ο ν. 2472/1997 που ρυθμίζει τα σχετικά ζητήματα. Η εφαρμογή του Κανονισμού θέτει αρκετές προκλήσεις στις επιχειρήσεις που θα κληθούν να καταβάλλουν αυξημένα πρόστιμα, σε περίπτωση μη συμμόρφωσης.

Το Γραφείο μας παρέχει ολοκληρωμένη υποστήριξη για τη συμμόρφωση με τον Κανονισμό και εγγυάται την ορθή εφαρμογή της νομοθεσίας στις εφαρμογές πληροφορικής των επιχειρήσεων.

Επίσης, το γραφείο μας παρέχει υπηρεσίες Υπεύθυνου Προστασίας Δεδομένων (Data Protection Officer), ο διορισμός του οποίου είναι υποχρεωτικός, σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις, σύμφωνα με τον Κανονισμό.

Summer school “Financial crime, corruption and money laundering: European and international perspectives

by with No Comment Summer schoolΧωρίς κατηγορία
Programme
http://anti-corruption.law.auth.gr/el/anti-corruption/5372

Wednesday, 5/7/2017

9:15-10:00 Welcome/ rientation
10.00-11.45 Prof. M. Kaiafa-Gbandi (AUTH), Fraud against the financial interests of the EU
12.00-13.45 Prof. M. Kaiafa-Gbandi(AUTH), Fraud against the financial interests of the EU
14:45-16:30 Dr. jur. Ath. Giannakoula (AUTH), Criminal penalties regarding fraud against the financial interests of the EU & interventions in the general part of criminal law of the Member States

Thursday, 6/7/2017
10.00-11.45 Prof. H. Satzger (LMU), Combating fraud against the financial interests of the EU – procedural and institutional aspects
12.00-13.45 Prof. H. Satzger (LMU), Combating fraud against the financial interests of the EU – procedural and institutional aspects
14.45-16.30 Dr. jur, Y. Naziris (AUTH), Identifying and addressing forms of financial crime carried out via the misuse of offshore companies

Friday, 7/7/2017
10.00-11.45 Prof. I. Zerbes (Uni Bremen), Transnational exchange of electronic evidence in matters of economic crime and corruption
12.00-13.45 Prof. I. Zerbes (Uni Bremen), Transnational exchange of electronic evidence in matters of economic crime and corruption
14.45-15:35 Ass. Prof. I. Iglezakis (AUTH), Data protection issues related to the prevention of money laundering
15:40-16.30 Dr. jur. N. Chatzinikolaou (AUTH), Criminal liability for self-money laundering

Saturday, 8/7/2017
10.00-11.45 Prof. M. Pieth (Uni Basel), Money laundering
12.00-13.45 Prof. M. Pieth (Uni Basel), Money laundering
14.45-16.30 Lecturer K. Chatzikostas (AUTH), The United Nations Convention against corruption

Monday, 10/7/2017
10.00-11.45 Ass. Prof. J. Walther (Univ. de Lorraine), Fighting Corruption – a comparative approach of institutional and procedural aspects
12.00-13.45 Ass. Prof. J. Walther (Univ. de Lorraine), Fighting Corruption – a comparative approach of institutional and procedural aspects
14.45-16.30 Prof. G. Dannecker (Uni Heidelberg), Tax offences in the European Union

Tuesday, 11/7/2017
10.00-11.45 Prof. G. Dannecker (Uni Heidelberg), Tax offences in the European Union
12.00-13.45 Prof. Th. Elholm (Univ. Syddansk), Perspectives on international jurisdiction concerning financial crime
14.45-16.30 Prof. Th. Elholm (Univ. Syddansk), Financial crime and punishment of legal persons
Wednesday, 12/7/2017
10.00-11.45 Assist. Prof. Th. Papakyriakou (AUTH), Assets recovery and confiscation
12.00-13.45 Prof. L. Bachmeier-Winter (Univ. Complutense/St. Louis Univ.), Fighting economic crime in a transnational setting: European procedure, judicial cooperation and cross-border evidence
14.45-16.30 Prof. L. Bachmeier-Winter (Univ. Complutense/St. Louis Univ.), Fighting economic crime in a transnational setting: European procedure, judicial cooperation and cross-border evidence

Thursday, 13/7/2017

10.00-12.00 Written Examination
12.30-14.30 Farewell – Lunch Buffet

Incl. Electronic Paper

SSRN Artificial intelligence

by with No Comment artificial intelligenceSSRNΧωρίς κατηγορία
Συλλογή πηγών για την τεχνητή νοημοσύνη στο δίκαιο, στο αποθετήριο SSRN, με άρθρα από το περιοδικό:
Artificial Intelligence – Law, Policy, & Ethics eJournal
Incl. Electronic Paper Driven to Safety: Robot Cars and the Future of LiabilityAAJ Research 
American Association for Justice 
Date Posted: February 13, 2017
Working Paper Series
5 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Personalizing EU Private Law. From Disclosures to Nudges and Mandates
European Review of Private Law, ForthcomingPhilipp Hacker
European University Institute
Date Posted: February 12, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
35 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Law Offices Expected to Be Top Technological Trends Impacting the Legal Profession in 2017
The Wyoming Lawyer, February 2017Blake Anthony Klinkner
Independent
Date Posted: February 10, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
5 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Automation Processes and Blockchain SystemsKartik Hegadekatti
Government of India, Ministry of Railways
Date Posted: February 06, 2017
Working Paper Series
10 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons: Are We in Danger of Losing an ‘Elementary Consideration of Humanity’?
European Society of International Law (ESIL) 2016 Annual Conference (Riga) Ozlem Ulgen
Birmingham City University
Date Posted: February 06, 2017
Working Paper Series
17 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Jailbreak!: What Happens When Autonomous Vehicle Owners Hack into Their Own Cars
Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, ForthcomingMichael Harry Sinanian
University of Michigan Law School
Date Posted: February 03, 2017
Working Paper Series
13 downloads

Representational Complexity in Law
Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 193 (2007)Harry Surden
University of Colorado Law School
Date Posted: February 02, 2017
Accepted Paper Series

Incl. Electronic Paper Understanding the Impact of Smart Cities and the Need for Smart RegulationsManick Wadhwa
University of Delhi – Faculty of Law, Student
Date Posted: February 02, 2017
Working Paper Series
12 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper More Human Than Human: How Some SF Presents AI’s Claims to the Right to Life and Self-Determination
Oxford Journal of Socio-Economic Studies, Hilary Term, 2017Christine A. Corcos
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge – Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Date Posted: February 02, 2017
Last Revised: February 07, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
9 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Controlling Humans and Machines
Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2016Bryant Walker Smith
University of South Carolina – School of Law
Date Posted: February 01, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
9 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Robot Law
Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-1Maxwell Mehlman, Jessica Wilen Berg and Soumya Ray
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Case Western Reserve University – Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Date Posted: February 01, 2017
Last Revised: February 03, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
21 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper What is Data Ethics?
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, Volume 374, Issue 2083, December 2016Luciano Floridi and Mariarosaria Taddeo
University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute and University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute
Date Posted: February 01, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
163 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: The US, EU, and UK ApproachCorinne J.N. Cath, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, Mariarosaria Taddeo and Luciano Floridi
University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute, The Alan Turing Institute, University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute and University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute
Date Posted: January 27, 2017
Working Paper Series
232 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Wild Westworld: The Application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to Social Networks’ Use of Machine-Learning AlgorithmsCatherine A. Tremble
Fordham Law Review
Date Posted: January 25, 2017
Working Paper Series
13 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection RegulationSandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt and Luciano Floridi
The Alan Turing Institute, University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute and University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute
Date Posted: January 24, 2017
Working Paper Series
674 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Can Machines Replace the Human Brain? A Review of Litigation Outcome Prediction Methods for Construction Disputes
Proceedings of the “New Perspectives In Construction Law” International Conference, March 2015, Ahmad Alozn and Abdulla Galadari
Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Students and Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (MIST)
Date Posted: January 24, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
5 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Rise of the Digital Regulator
Duke Law Journal, ForthcomingRory Van Loo
Boston University School of Law
Date Posted: January 23, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
182 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Daddy’s Car: La Inteligencia Artificial Como Herramienta Facilitadora De Derechos De Autor (Daddy’s Car: Artificial Intelligence As a Creative Tool for Copyright)
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial, No. 22 • Julio-Diciembre 2016, Jaime Alberto Diaz Limon
Independent
Date Posted: January 19, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
12 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Machine Rules. Of Drones, Robots, and the Info-Capitalist Society
Italian Law Journal, Vol. 2, p. 367-404, 2016Guido Noto La Diega
Northumbria University
Date Posted: January 17, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
37 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Educating Lawmakers and Testing Autonomous Decision Makers: Working Reaction Article to 2016 Autonomous Vehicle Safety Regulation World CongressKatherine D Sheriff
Emory University, School of Law, Students
Date Posted: January 12, 2017
Working Paper Series
9 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Siri-ously 2.0: What Artificial Intelligence Reveals about the First Amendment
Minnesota Law Review (Forthcoming), Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 17-01, Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 374Toni M. Massaro, Helen L. Norton and Margot E. Kaminski
University of Arizona College of Law, University of Colorado School of Law and Ohio State University (OSU) – Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Date Posted: January 10, 2017
Last Revised: January 12, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
149 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Law and Moral Dilemmas
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 130, p. 659, 2016Bert I. Huang
Columbia Law School
Date Posted: January 09, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
310 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Legality of Lethal Autonomous Weapons AKA Killer RobotsUdani Gunawardena
Central European University
Date Posted: January 04, 2017
Working Paper Series
15 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data
Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 78, (2017), Forthcoming, Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 592Jack M. Balkin
Yale University – Law School
Date Posted: December 29, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
413 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Threshold of Non-International Armed Conflict
Sasha Radin & Jason Coats, Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Threshold of Non-international Armed Conflict, 30 Temple Int’l & Comp. L.J. 133 (2016)Sasha Radin and Jason Coats
Stockton Center for the Study of International Law, U.S. Naval War College and Independent
Date Posted: December 19, 2016
Last Revised: January 11, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
19 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Biometric Cyberintelligence and the Posse Comitatus Act
Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2016-14Margaret Hu
Washington and Lee University – School of Law
Date Posted: December 17, 2016
Last Revised: December 21, 2016
Working Paper Series
22 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Should Autonomous Agents Be Liable for What They Do?
Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Paper No. 2016/12Jaap Hage
Maastricht University – METRO Institute
Date Posted: December 15, 2016
Working Paper Series
34 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Big Data’s New Discrimination Threats: Amending the Americans with Disabilities Act to Cover Discrimination Based on Data-Driven Predictions of Future Disease
Forthcoming in Glenn Cohen, Allison Hoffman and William Sage (eds.), Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics (Cambridge University Press 2017) , Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-38Sharona Hoffman
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Date Posted: December 14, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
34 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper The Ethical KnobGiuseppe Contissa, Francesca Lagioia and Giovanni Sartor
European University Institute – Department of Law (LAW), European University Institute – Department of Law (LAW) and European University Institute Law Department
Date Posted: December 08, 2016
Last Revised: February 09, 2017
Working Paper Series
45 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Products Liability as Enterprise Liability
USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 16-38Gregory C. Keating
University of Southern California Law School
Date Posted: December 07, 2016
Last Revised: January 12, 2017
Working Paper Series
112 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Regulation by MachineBenjamin Alarie, Anthony Niblett and Albert Yoon
University of Toronto – Faculty of Law, University of Toronto – Faculty of Law and University of Toronto – Faculty of Law
Date Posted: December 02, 2016
Last Revised: December 06, 2016
Working Paper Series
178 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Tort LiabilityRyan Abbott
University of Surrey School of Law
Date Posted: December 01, 2016
Last Revised: February 04, 2017
Working Paper Series
143 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Völker – und europarechtliche Implikationen autonomen Fahrens (International Law and Autonomous Driving)
Forthcoming, Bernd Oppermann/Jutta Stender-Vorwachs, Autonomes Fahren, München 2017,Antje von Ungern-Sternberg
Lehrstuhl für Völkerrecht und Öffentliches Recht
Date Posted: November 30, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
26 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Algorithmic Consumers
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 30, 2017Michal S. Gal and Niva Elkin-Koren
University of Haifa – Faculty of Law and University of Haifa – Faculty of Law
Date Posted: November 29, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
236 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Online Dispute Resolution: Stinky, Repugnant, or Drab
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-40Robert Condlin
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Date Posted: November 23, 2016
Last Revised: January 04, 2017
Accepted Paper Series
207 downloads

Re-Conceiving the Rule of Law: Values, Relationships, and Technology
California Western School of Law Research Paper No. 16-19Thomas D. Barton
California Western School of Law
Date Posted: November 19, 2016
Working Paper Series

Student Privacy Principles for the Age of Big Data: Moving Beyond FERPA and FIPPs
8 Drexel Law Review 339 (2016)Elana Zeide
New York University Information Law Institute
Date Posted: November 18, 2016
Accepted Paper Series

Incl. Electronic Paper Machine Learning with Personal Data
Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 247/2016Dimitra Kamarinou, Christopher Millard and Jatinder Singh
Queen Mary University of London, School of Law – Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law – Centre for Commercial Law Studies and University of Cambridge – Computer Laboratory
Date Posted: November 08, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
323 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper The Technology Legal Framework Issues and Challenges in Romania
Supliment Revista Romana de Drept European, ForthcomingCatalin Vrabie and Andreea Maria Tirziu
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (NUPSPA) and National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Students
Date Posted: November 04, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
6 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Responsibility & Machine Learning: Part of a ProcessJatinder Singh, Ian Walden, Jon Crowcroft and Jean Bacon
University of Cambridge – Computer Laboratory, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, University of Cambridge and University of Cambridge – Computer Laboratory
Date Posted: October 28, 2016
Working Paper Series
134 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper The Technology Legal Framework Issues and Challenges in Romania
Supliment Revista Romana de Drept European, (Forthcoming)Catalin Vrabie and Andreea Maria Tirziu
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (NUPSPA) and National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Students
Date Posted: October 28, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
7 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Drones and the Threshold for Waging War
Politik (Forthcoming)Ezio Di Nucci
University of Copenhagen
Date Posted: October 27, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
12 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes in Tax LawBenjamin Alarie, Anthony Niblett and Albert Yoon
University of Toronto – Faculty of Law, University of Toronto – Faculty of Law and University of Toronto – Faculty of Law
Date Posted: October 20, 2016
Working Paper Series
202 downloads

Reflections on the EPSRC Principles of Robotics from the New Far-Side of the LawAurora Voiculescu
University of Westminster – Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Date Posted: October 18, 2016
Working Paper Series

Incl. Electronic Paper Keep Out! The Efficacy of Trespass, Nuisance and Privacy Torts as Applied to Drones
33 Georgia State Law Review, ForthcomingHillary B. Farber
University of Massachusetts School of Law at Dartmouth
Date Posted: October 17, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
109 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Responsibility, Autonomy and Accountability: Legal Liability for Machine Learning
Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 243/2016Chris Reed, Elizabeth J Kennedy and Sara Nogueira Silva
Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, Queen Mary University London, School of Law – Centre for Commercial Law Studies and Queen Mary University of London, School of Law
Date Posted: October 17, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
202 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Remote and Autonomous Warfare Systems – Precautions in Attack and Individual Accountability
Research Handbook on Remote Warfare, Edward Elgar Press, Jens David Ohlin ed., 2016, Forthcoming Ian Henderson, Patrick Keane and Joshua Liddy
Law School, University of Adelaide, Government of the Commonwealth of Australia – Royal Australian Air Force and Australian National University – ANU College of Law
Date Posted: October 16, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
52 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Introduction: Big Data and Competition Policy
Big Data and Competition Policy, Oxford University Press (2016)Maurice E. Stucke and Allen P. Grunes
University of Tennessee College of LawThe Konkurrenz Group and The Konkurrenz Group
Date Posted: October 16, 2016
Accepted Paper Series
447 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper Company Law and Autonomous Systems: A Blueprint for Lawyers, Entrepreneurs, and RegulatorsShawn Bayern, Thomas Burri, Thomas D. Grant, Daniel M. Häusermann, Florian Möslein and Richard Williams
Florida State University – College of Law, University of St. Gallen, University of Cambridge – Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of St. Gallen Law School, Universität Marburg (Institut für Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht) and University of Cambridge – Faculty of Law
Date Posted: October 12, 2016
Working Paper Series
167 downloads

Incl. Electronic Paper A Machine Learning Classifier for Corporate Opportunity Waivers
Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 553Gabriel V. Rauterberg and Eric L. Talley
University of Michigan Law School and Columbia University – School of Law
Date Posted: October 09, 2016
Last Revised: December 05, 2016
Working Paper Series
91 downloads

page2image16768

International workshop From Online Hate Speech to cyberterrorism: Freedom of expression VS Security: what regulations are possible?

by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορία


February 8th, 2017 (9.00am – 5.45pm)
Faculty of Law and Political science, University of Montpellier (Amphi C)

8.30am: Welcoming of participants
9.00am: Opening and workshop presentation
Philippe Augé, President of the University of Montpellier.
Marie-Elisabeth André, Dean of the Faculty of Law and Political science, University of Montpellier. Adel Jomni, Lecturer and Researcher, University of Montpellier.
Evangelos Markatos, Laboratory Director at FORTH, Mandola project Manager.



9.30am: Opening remarks
Pierre Valleix, Attorney General to the Montpellier Court of Appeal.
9.45am: Session 1
Is there a common definition of Hate Speech? Sociological, historical and linguistic approach.
Chairperson of the session: Alvaro Ortigosa Professor, Autonomous University of Madrid
Sociolinguistic analysis of Hate Speech
Claudine Moise, Professor, Lidilem Laboratory, University Grenoble Alpes.
The evolution of Hate Speech in recent years
Marc Knobel, Historian, Researcher, Representative Council of the Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF). Hate Speech in our society, a sociological approach
Séraphin ALAVA, Professor, University Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse.
Hate Speech and radicalisation: focus on cyberterrorism
Laurent DELHALLE, Expert, SEGECO Consulting.
11.00am: Coffee break



11.15am: Session 2
The incrimination of Online Hate Speech: Freedom of expression vs Security
Chairperson of the session: Gérard Gonzalez
Professor, Institute of European Human Rights Law, University of Montpellier
The criminalisation of Hate Speech: limits and comparative study of the laws from 10 European Union’s member states
Estelle De Marco, Founder of the centre of research Inthemis, Expert for the Council of Europe.
The criminalisation of the criticism of religion
Ioannis Iglezakis, Professor, University Aristote of Thessaloniki. From hate to terrorism: analysis of legislative developments
Myriam Quéméner, Magistrate, Advisor to the Ministry of the Interior – Fight against cyber threats.
Freedom of expression in the face of Hate Speech in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights
Mustapha Afroukh, Lecturer -researcher, Institute of European Human Rights Law, University of Montpellier.
12.45pm – Lunch break



2.00pm: Session 3
Prevention, investigation and public/private cooperation to fight Hate Speech
Chairperson of the session: Adel Jomni Lecturer-researcher, University of Montpellier, Expert for the Council of Europe
Reporting mechanism, investigation and public/private cooperation: the French strategy
Olivier Dupas, Commissioner, Head of the Criminal Division with the Montpellier Regional Police Service. Technologies to detect, analyse and report online hate speech: the Mandola experience
Demetris Paschalides, Research assistant, University of Cyprus.
Big data technology used to analyse and combat online Hate Speech
Anna Vancsó, Senior analyst, Neticle Technologies, PhD student, Corvinus University of Budapest. Is counter-speech an efficient strategy to fight online hate speech?
Christian Aghroum, CEO of SoCoA Sarl.
3.45pm: Coffee break



4.00pm: Session 4
What are the desirable developments in the combat against online hate speech?
Chairperson of the session: Cormac Callanan,
Expert for the Council of Europe, CEO of Aconite Internet Solutions
Hate content regulation: how to strengthen the protection of private life and personal data?
Gérard Haas, Attorney-at-Law, Haas Avocats (Law firm).
First responders’s role in combatting online Hate Speech: tools, strategies and international cooperation
Yves Vandermeer, Chairman of the European Cybercrime Training and Education Group (E.C.T.E.G), Europol.
What European strategies toward ISPs and the fight against hate speech and terrorism?: the UE code of conduct vs the fundamental rights of individuals
Maryant Fernández-Pérez, Advocacy Manager, European Digital Rights (EDRi).
From criminalisation to permission: analysis and critique of the conditions for free expression in modern democracies (USA, Europe and international)
5.45pm: Closing remarks
A simultaneous translation will be provided in English and French.
Challenges and strategies:

page2image16768

Eric Heinze, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen Mary University of London.

Media Law in Greece

by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορία

 

Ioannis Iglezakis
2017, 192pp, Paperback
ISBN: 978-90-411-8753-6
© Kluwer Law International

 

Derived from the renowned multi-volume International Encyclopaedia of Laws, this analysis of media law in Greece surveys the massively altered and enlarged legal landscape traditionally encompassed in laws pertaining to freedom of expression and regulation of communications. Everywhere, a shift from mass media to mass self-communication has put enormous pressure on traditional law models.

An introduction describing the main actors and salient aspects of media markets is followed by in-depth analyses of print media, radio and television broadcasting, the Internet, commercial communications, political advertising, concentration in media markets, and media regulation. Among the topics that arise for discussion are privacy, cultural policy, protection of minors, competition policy, access to digital gateways, protection of journalists’ sources, standardization and interoperability, and liability of intermediaries. Relevant case law is considered throughout, as are various ethical codes.

A clear, comprehensive overview of media legislation, case law, and doctrine, presented from the practitioner’s point of view, this book is a valuable time-saving resource for all concerned with media and communication freedom. Lawyers representing parties with interests in Greece will welcome this very useful guide, and academics and researchers will appreciate its value in the study of comparative media law.

Tabel of Contents

The Author
List of Abbreviations
Preface
General Introduction
Part I. Freedom of Speech
Part II. Regulation of Print Media
Chapter 1. The Journalists’ Profession
Chapter 2. Journalists’ Rights
Chapter 3. Journalists’ Liability
Chapter 4. Right to Reply and to Rectification
Chapter 5. Access to Public Information
Chapter 6. Supervisory Body for Press Deontology and Disciplinary Board
Part III. Regulation of Audiovisual Media (Broadcasting)
Chapter 1. Public Service Broadcasting
Chapter 2. Private Broadcasting
Chapter 3. Programme Standards
Chapter 4. Political Broadcasting
Chapter 5. Advertising Rules
Chapter 6. Right to Information
Chapter 7. Access to Networks and Platforms
Chapter 8. Standards and Interoperability
Part IV. Cross-Ownership Regulation
Part V. Supervision: Media Regulator
Chapter 1. Organization
Chapter 2. Tasks
Chapter 3. Sanctioning Powers
Selected Bibliography
Index
by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορία
Media Law in Greece
By Ioannis Iglezakis
2017, 192pp, Paperback
ISBN: 978-90-411-8753-6
© Kluwer Law International

Derived from the renowned multi-volume International Encyclopaedia of Laws, this analysis of media law in Greece surveys the massively altered and enlarged legal landscape traditionally encompassed in laws pertaining to freedom of expression and regulation of communications. Everywhere, a shift from mass media to mass self-communication has put enormous pressure on traditional law models.

An introduction describing the main actors and salient aspects of media markets is followed by in-depth analyses of print media, radio and television broadcasting, the Internet, commercial communications, political advertising, concentration in media markets, and media regulation. Among the topics that arise for discussion are privacy, cultural policy, protection of minors, competition policy, access to digital gateways, protection of journalists’ sources, standardization and interoperability, and liability of intermediaries. Relevant case law is considered throughout, as are various ethical codes.

A clear, comprehensive overview of media legislation, case law, and doctrine, presented from the practitioner’s point of view, this book is a valuable time-saving resource for all concerned with media and communication freedom. Lawyers representing parties with interests in Greece will welcome this very useful guide, and academics and researchers will appreciate its value in the study of comparative media law.

Tabel of Contents

The Author
List of Abbreviations
Preface
General Introduction
Part I. Freedom of Speech
Part II. Regulation of Print Media
Chapter 1. The Journalists’ Profession
Chapter 2. Journalists’ Rights
Chapter 3. Journalists’ Liability
Chapter 4. Right to Reply and to Rectification
Chapter 5. Access to Public Information
Chapter 6. Supervisory Body for Press Deontology and Disciplinary Board
Part III. Regulation of Audiovisual Media (Broadcasting)
Chapter 1. Public Service Broadcasting
Chapter 2. Private Broadcasting
Chapter 3. Programme Standards
Chapter 4. Political Broadcasting
Chapter 5. Advertising Rules
Chapter 6. Right to Information
Chapter 7. Access to Networks and Platforms
Chapter 8. Standards and Interoperability
Part IV. Cross-Ownership Regulation
Part V. Supervision: Media Regulator
Chapter 1. Organization
Chapter 2. Tasks
Chapter 3. Sanctioning Powers
Selected Bibliography
Index

ΤΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ΣΤΗ ΛΗΘΗ: ΕΝΑ ΝΕΟ ΨΗΦΙΑΚΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΟΧΩΡΟ

by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορία

Το δικαίωμα στη λήθη αποτελεί ένα νέο ψηφιακό δικαίωμα, το οποίο περιλαμβάνεται στον Γενικό Κανονισμό για την Προστασία Δεδομένων (Κανονισμός 2016/679) που θα τεθεί σε ισχύ το 2018.

Το δικαίωμα έχει ήδη αναγνωριστεί με την απόφαση της 13ης Μαΐου 2014 (υπόθεση C-131/12) του Δικαστηρίου της ΕΕ, το οποίο προέβη σε ερμηνεία των διατάξεων της οδηγίας 95/46 / ΕΟΚ ώστε να περιλαμβάνουν το «δικαίωμα της λήθης» στο Διαδίκτυο. Η υπόθεση αυτή αφορούσε στις μηχανές αναζήτησης και την υποχρέωσή τους να αφαιρούν συνδέσμους προς ιστοσελίδες από τις λίστες των αποτελεσμάτων τους, έπειτα από αιτήματα των υποκειμένων των δεδομένων, με το επιχείρημα ότι οι πληροφορίες αυτές δε θα πρέπει πλέον να συνδέονται με το όνομά τους μέσω ενός τέτοιου καταλόγου. Το Δικαστήριο έλαβε υπόψη ότι ακόμη και η αρχικώς νόμιμη επεξεργασία δεδομένων που είναι αληθή, μπορεί, κατά τη διάρκεια του χρόνου, να καταστεί ασυμβίβαστη με την οδηγία 95/46/ΕΟΚ, όταν τα εν λόγω δεδομένα δεν είναι πλέον απαραίτητα, υπό το πρίσμα των σκοπών για τους οποίους είχαν συλλεγεί ή τύχει επεξεργασίας.

Ωστόσο, το ψηφιακό δικαίωμα στη λήθη δεν αφορά μόνο στην υποχρέωση των παρόχων μηχανών αναζήτησης να αφαιρούν συνδέσμους που αφορούν προσωπικά δεδομένα. Και αυτό, καθότι ενσαρκώνει στην ουσία το αίτημα των ατόμων να έχουν τη δυνατότητα να επιτυγχάνουν την αφαίρεση των προσωπικών τους δεδομένων, ιδίως εκείνων που έχουν δημοσιευθεί  σε μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης, εκτός εάν υπάρχει επιτακτικός λόγος για τη διατήρησή τους.

Στην πράξη, το δικαίωμα στη λήθη αφορά τη δυνατότητα αποτελεσματικής αντιμετώπισης  των συνεπειών του Διαδικτύου που «δεν ξεχνά ποτέ», εξασφαλίζοντας την προσωπική αυτονομία του ατόμου και την προστασία της ιδιωτικής ζωής.

 

Βλ. αναλυτικά εδώ

Ψηφιακή Πύλη Πολιτικής και Ποινικής Δικαιοσύνης

by with No Comment Χωρίς κατηγορίαΨηφιακή Πύλη
Σε λειτουργία τέθηκε η Ψηφιακή Πύλη Πολιτικής και Ποινικής Δικαιοσύνης του Ολοκληρωμένου Συστήματος Διαχείρισης Δικαστικών Υποθέσεων (ΟΣΔΔΥ-ΠΠ). Το ΟΣΔΔΥ-ΠΠ σχεδιάστηκε για να εξυπηρετεί πολιτικά και ποινικά δικαστήρια στις Εφετειακές Περιφέρειες Αθηνών, Πειραιώς, Θεσσαλονίκης και Χαλκίδας καθώς και τον Άρειο Πάγο. Απώτερος στόχος είναι η επέκτασή του στους δικαστικούς φορείς όλης της χώρας.

Συγκεκριμένα, η Ψηφιακή Πύλη λειτουργεί στην ιστοσελίδα solon.gov.gr

Η υπηρεσία αυτή παρέχει ενημέρωση για την πορεία υποθέσεων όσον αφορά τα δικαστήρια και τις διαδικασίες που έχουν υπαχθεί σε αυτήν: 

  • Πολιτική ροή στο Εφετείο Πειραιά, Πρωτοδικείο Πειραιά, Εφετείο Αθηνών και Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών (Τακτική Μονομελούς/Πολυμελούς και Αυτοκίνητα)
  • στα Ειρηνοδικεία Αθηνών, Αμαρουσίου, Κρωπίας, Λαγκαδά, Μεγάρων, Νέας Ιωνίας και Χαλανδρίου, 

Σύντομα θα ενεργοποιηθούν και νέες ηλεκτρονικές υπηρεσίες όπως πληροφορίες πινακίων, αιτήσεις για πιστοποιητικά και ηλεκτρονική κατάθεση δικογράφων.







The Right To Be Forgotten: A New Digital Right for cyberspace

by with No Comment right to be forgottenΧωρίς κατηγορία
Ioannis Iglezakis
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Paper presented at: Segurança da informação e Direito Constitucional do ciberespaço, 17-18 November 2016, Lisbon

 

Abstract

The right to be forgotten is a new digital right which is included in the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation 2016/679), entering into force in 2018. Ιt has also has been recognized by the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU with its decision of 13 May 2014 in case C-131/12, which interpreted the provisions of Directive 95/46/EEC as to include a right ‘to be forgotten’ on the Net. This case dealt with search engines and their obligation to remove links to web pages from their lists of results, following requests of data subjects on the grounds that information should no longer be linked to their name by means of such a list and taking into account that even initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become incompatible with the directive where those data are no longer necessary in the light of the purposes for which they were collected or processed. The digital right to be forgotten, however, is more than an obligation of search engine providers to remove links to personal data. It, moreover, embodies the claim of individuals to have personal data relating to them deleted, particularly those posted in social media, unless there is a compelling ground for keeping it. It, effectively, deals with the consequences of an Internet that ‘never forgets’, ensuring personal autonomy and privacy.
Keywords: Data protection, freedom of expression, right to be forgotten, right to oblivion, search engines
Table of Contents

I. Introduction

In 2012, the EU Commission presented the proposal for a Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (‘General Data Protection Regulation’, GDPR), repealing Directive 95/46/EEC, with the aim to modernize the legal framework for data protection in the EU (Hornung, 2012; De Hert/Papakonstantinou, 2012; Danagher, 2012; Kuschewsky, 2012; Traung, 2012). A central provision in the proposed Regulation was Article 17 introducing the ‘right to be forgotten’ in the digital environment, which drew its origins from the ‘right of oblivion’ – or le droit à l’oubli, recognized by case-law in France, Italy and other countries (Mantelero, 2012). In the final text of the Regulation that was recently adopted, i.e. Regulation 2016/679, some changes took place, but the essence of the right to be forgotten remained unaffected, while its title changed to ‘Right to erasure’.
The intended effect of the right to be forgotten is to enhance users’ rights on the Internet and remedy the lack of control over their personal data (Ausloos, 2012). It also presents an attempt to deal with the issue of digital forgetting, in other words, with the privacy issues arising in a Web that never forgets (Rosen, 2011). In more particular, in the digital age the ‘default of forgetting’ has gradually shifted towards a ‘default of remembering’ as pointed out by Mayer-Schönberder (Mayer-Schönberger, 2009), and this causes major privacy risks in a world of big data (Koops, 2011). This is a world in which it is almost impossible to escape the past, since every status update or photograph, and every tweet may be copied and/or reposted by other users or saved in Internet archives, such as the wayback machine1, and in cached pages2; as a result that information may be available online, even if it has been deleted in its initial place (Mitrou/Karyda, 2012). Moreover, search engines provide a great number of personal information for any particular person in case a search with a name and/or surname is carried out.
In this context, the introduction of a right to be forgotten is the recognition of the enhanced capacity of cyberspace to disseminate and distribute huge amounts of data, including personal data, hence making it impossible to control the flow of personal information (Ausloos, op. cit.).
It should be noted that there are different conceptual approaches as regards this new right in the literature. While it is conceived primarily as a right (e.g., Conley, 2010), other authors speak of an ethical or social value (Blanchete/Johnson, 2002) or of a policy aim (Mayer-Schönberger, op. cit.) and of a ‘legitimate interest to forget and to be forgotten’ (Rouvroy, 2008). In addition, it is connected with the right to personal identity, in so far as it expresses ‘the ability to reinvent oneself, to have second chance to start-over and present a renewed identity to the world’ (Andrade, 2011, p. 91).
What is common in these conceptualizations is the recognition that an individual has a significant interest possibly protected by a legal right in not being confronted by others with data from the past, which are not relevant for current decisions or views about him or her (Koops, 2001, at 232). In the digital world, this right takes a more pragmatic form; it is conceived as an individual’s claim to erasure of data relating to him and it may as well be rephrased as a right to ‘cyber oblivion’ (Xanthoulis, 2012).

II. The Right to Be Forgotten as a constituent of Internet Privacy Rights

As the Internet is an inherent part of our lives today, privacy on the Internet has become a very important issue. In our understanding, privacy is not the right to ‘be let alone’, which amounts to an outdated conception (Warren/Brandeis, 1890), but more or less stands for the autonomy of the individual to decide which information and where he or she wishes to disclose.
To deal with threats to privacy and autonomy, it is suggested to embrace a set of internet privacy rights, which will deal efficiently with those threats (Bernal, 2014). Such a rights-based approach differentiates from a purely statutory approach and it refers to the concept of expectations in the theory of Luhmann (Luhmann, 1995), as they reflect what individuals consider to be their rights. In particular, the digital rights are the following:
a) The right to browse the internet with privacy: it means that internet users when searching for and accessing to information, when buying or making another transaction have a legitimate expectation of privacy
b) The right to monitor those who monitor us: this right is understood as the right to be informed in case of lawful data monitoring
c) the right to delete personal data: this represents the claim of the individual to have its personal data deleted, so this constitutes the right to be forgotten
d) the right to an online identity: this is the right to create an online identity, to assert that online identity and to protect it. This includes the right to keep identity data confidential and not revealing those data, unless it is absolutely necessary.
As it is evident, the right to be forgotten which the subject of this presentation has a pivotal position in the above set of digital rights. In our view, it is important to comprehend the above right as part of our fundamental digital rights, since it is, in a sense, distinct from privacy. More particularly, the right to privacy extends to information that it is not publicly known, while the right to be forgotten refers to information to be deleted that were made previously public (Weber, 2011).

III. The regulation of Article 17 GDPR and the CJEU decision in the Google Spain case

The provision of Article 17 GDPR basically includes a right to erasure of data that requires the controller to delete personal data and preclude any further dissemination of this data, but also to oblige third parties, e.g. search engines, etc., to delete any links to, or copies or replication of that data.
This applies in six instances, which derive from data protection principles (Costa, Poullet, 2012): (a) the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed; (b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based, and where there is no other legal ground for the processing; (c) the data subject objects to the processing and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects to the processing; (d) the personal data have been unlawfully processed; (e) the personal data have to be erased for compliance with a legal obligation in Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject; (f) the personal data have been collected in relation to the offer of information society services to children.
The right to be forgotten which is enshrined in the GDPR is not conceived as an absolute right; thus, a number of exceptions restrict its ambit, the most important being the freedom of expression and information. There is consensus that such a right cannot amount to a right of erasure of history and turn our modern society into a society of ‘lotus eaters’ (Iglezakis, 2014), which would be the case if the Internet was programmed to forget, e.g. if Internet content was programmed to auto-expire (Fleischer, 2011).
However, there are concerns expressed by US authors, mainly, that this right will have chilling effects on free expression, as it might force Internet intermediaries to censor the contents that they publish or to which they link, and hence, lose their neutral status (see, e.g., Rosen, 2012, Fleischer, 2011). IN U.S. there is a legal tradition which denies protection of the right to be forgotten, at least as far as media and the press are concerned, which enjoy the right to publicize information that is legally available and not countervailing argument could be invoked to restrict this right with regard to the past of criminals and other detestable persons (Werro, 2009).
Search engines are also affected by a right to be forgotten. In more particular, search engines facilitate the finding of data through the myriad of pages published in the World Wide Web and in consequence, they enhance the ability of individuals to receive and impart information. Any restriction of search engines’ functioning, therefore, might be seen as a restriction of freedom of expression (Alsenoy et al., 2013).
Viviane Reding, the former EU Justice Commissioner and former Vice-President of the EU Commission, pointed out that this right builds on already existing rules, and is not an ex novo right (Redding, 2012). Indeed, the European Union Court of Justice issued a decision on May 13 2014, in case C-131/12 (Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez), in which it confirmed that view, as it found that the ‘right to be forgotten’ is rooted in the provisions of Directive 95/46/EEC. Consequently, Vivian Reding referred to this decision in a post on Facebook as a ‘clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans’3.
Thus, the decision of the CJEU reinforced digital forgetting despite the hesitating stance of EU governments that decided to delay the data protection reform initiated by the Proposal for a Data Protection regulation until 2015, though it was expected to have the data protection reform finalized before the European Parliamentary election of May 2014.4 It should be underlined that this decision comes one month after the decision of the Court in case C-293/12 and C0594/12 (Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others), which declared the Data Retention Directive to be invalid. This does not suggest that the Court is carrying out judicial activism in favor of informational privacy, since the rulings in both cases are justified. It represented a clear message, nevertheless; particularly as far as the Google case is concerned, it is evident that it supported the reform of the EU legal framework on data protection and the introduction of a control right, such as the ‘right to be forgotten’. It makes no surprise, thus, that this right was actually included in the Regulation 2016/679.
Moreover, it is evident that the ruling of the CJEU in this case, which recognized a right to have Google delete links to data that are irrelevant and/or outdated, will have significant repercussions, particularly to Internet companies, such as search engines. Google, shortly after the decision was issued, received certain removal requests; more specifically, an ex-politician seeking re-election demanded to have links to an article about his behavior in office removed, a man convicted of possessing child abuse images also requested links to pages about his convictions to be erased and, a doctor asked for the removal of negative reviews from patients from the results on searches5.
From Google’s perspective this represents a very negative situation, as it received an overflow of removal requests, on the basis of the CJEU decision. In order to cope with it, it created a new process for the erasure of data, namely, a web form through which people can submit their requests for the erasure of links to information regarding them.6 Google reported to have received more than 91,000 requests by July, 2014, which covered a total of 328,000 links, and it approved more than 50% of them, it asked for more information in about 15% of the cases and rejected more than 30% of the applications.7 The way Google handled the removal requests, however, was criticized by EU regulators, since it restricted the removal of Internet links to European sites only and it notified the owners of websites that have been removed from search results when it proceeds to such removal.8

IV. The ECJ decision in the Google Spain case, in particular

The main issue at stake in the Google Spain case was whether the relevant provisions of the Directive might serve as a legal basis for claims of removal of personal data from the list of search names displayed after a search is made on the basis of the name of an individual.
The CJEU considered first the provision of Article 12 (b) of the Directive, which states that ‘Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the controller as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the Directive, in particular because of the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the data’. The list of the reasons that justify such a claim is not an exhausting one, so the Court held that the incompatibility of the processing with the provisions of the Directive may also result from the fact that such data are inadequate, irrelevant or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing, that they are not kept up to date, or that they are kept for longer than is necessary, unless they are required to be kept for historical, statistical or scientific purposes. This is a particular reference to the data quality principle as enshrined in the provisions of Article 6 (1) (c) to (e) of the Directive.9
The Court further made the argument that even initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become incompatible with the Directive where those data are no longer necessary in the light of the purposes for which they were collected or processed.10 It is evident that this line of argumentation is influenced by the provisions of the Draft Regulation establishing the right to be forgotten and shows the commitment of the Court to the data protection reform process.
Subsequently, the Court applied this maxim to the circumstances of the case; it stated in particular that if a request by the data subject is made, in accordance with Article 12 (b) of the Directive, clarifying that the inclusion in the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name of the links to web pages published lawfully by third parties and containing true information relating to him personally is, at this point in time, incompatible with Article 6(1)(c) to (e) of the Directive because that information appears, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing at issue carried out by the operator of the search engine, then the information and links in the list of results must be erased.11
Further, in case the data subject exercises his/her right to object on compelling legal grounds relating to his/her particular situation to the processing of personal data relating to him/her, according to Article 14 (a) of the Directive, the Court supported the view that where such requests are based on alleged non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 7(f) of the Directive, the processing must be authorized under Article 7 for the entire period during which it is carried out.12
The time factor appears to play a role in this case, and thus, the Court found that in such requests it should be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information relating to him/her personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his/her name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name.13
The CJEU went even further; it emphasized that the right of the data subject to request the removal of information from the search results of search engines is based on Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and these rights override not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine, but also the interest of the general public in finding information concerning a data subject.
An exception from this rule is made in case the data subject is a public figure, because then the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.14
Finally, the Court made particular reference to the issue in the main proceedings concerning the display, in the list of results that the internet user obtains by making a search by means of Google Search on the basis of the data subject’s name, of links to pages of the on-line archives of a daily newspaper that contain announcements mentioning the data subject’s name and relating to a real-estate auction connected with attachment proceedings for the recovery of social security debts. The Court’s decision is that, taking into account the sensitivity of this information and the fact that this information had taken place 16 years earlier, the data subject substantiated a right not to have this information linked to his name by means of a list of search results.

V. Conclusion

The new digital right to digital forgetting has already had quite a success, although its statutory implementation is yet to happen. Search engines have complied with the decision of the CJEU in the Google Spain case and respond to requests for deleting search results. The first company that published a form for deletion requests was Google, but also Bing and Yahoo followed suit.15  Although, in the beginning the removals only took place as regards European versions of Google, it has been extended to all of its domains, as the French data protection authority threatened to impose sanctions on Google if it did not remove search results globally across all versions of its service and not just European domains.16  Naturally, once the GPDPR enters into force, the right to be forgotten will acquire a wider dimension, covering a multitude of internet services.

REFERENCES:

Alsenoy, B., Van/Kuczerawy, A./Ausloos, J., Search engines after Google Spain: internet@liberty or privacy@peril?, ICRI working paper 15/2013, online available at: https://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/  and http://ssrn.com/link/ICRI-RES.html. 
Ausloos, J., The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Worth remembering?, (2012)  Computer Law & Security Review 28, pp. 143-152.
Bernal, P., Internet Privacy Rights. Rights to Protect Autonomy (2014) Cambridge University Press.
Blanchette, J. -F./Johnson, D.G., Data Retention and the panoptic society: The social benefits of  forgetfulness, (2002) The Information Society: An International Journal, vol. 18, issue 1.
Conley, C., The Right to Delete, AAAI Spring Symposium Series, North America,  (2010), online available at: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS10/paper/view/1158/1482
Costa, L./Poullet, Y., Privacy and the regulation of 2012, (2012) Computer Law & Security Review 28, pp. 254-262.
Danagher, L., An Assessment of the Draft Data Protection Regulation: Does it Effectively Protect Data?, (2012) European Journal of Law and Technology vol. 3, No. 3, online available at: http://ejlt.org//article/view/171/260.
Fleischer, P., Foggy Thinking About the Right to Oblivion, Privacy…?(Mar. 9, 2011), online available at: http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html.
Hert, P. De/Papakonstantinou, V., ‘The proposed data protection regulation replacing Directive 95/46/EC: a sound system for the protection of individuals’, (2012), Computer Law & Security Review, issue 2, vol.28, pp.130 – 142.
Hornung, G., A General Data Protection Regulation for Europe? Light and Shade in the Commission’s draft of 25 January 2012, (2012) scripted vol. 9, issue 1, 2012.
Iglezakis, I., The right to digital oblivion and its restrictions (2014), Sakkoulas ed. (in Greek).
Koops, B.–J., Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows. A Critical Analysis of the “Right to Forgotten” in Big Data Practice, (2011) scripted vol. 8, Issue 3, Dec. 2011.
Kuschewsky, M., Sweeping Reform for EU Data Protection, (2012) European Lawyer, 112, pp. 12 et seq.
Luhmann, N. Social Systems (1995), Stanford University Press.
Mayer-Schönberger, V., Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age (2009), Princeton University Press.
Mandelero, A, U.S. Concern about the European Right to Be Forgotten and Free Speech: Much Ado about Nothing? (2012), Contratto e impresa, pp. 727-740, online available at: http://porto.polito.it/2503514/
Mitrou, L./Karyda, M., EU’s Data Protection Reform and the Right to be Forgotten: A Legal Response to a Technological Challenge? (February 5, 2012). 5th International Conference of Information Law and Ethics 2012, Corfu-Greece, June 29-30, 2012, online available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2165245
Reding, V., The EU Data Protection Reform 2012: Making Europe the Standard Setter for Modern Data Protection Rules in the Digital Age, Munich 22 January 2012, Speech/12/26.
Rosen, J., Free Speech, Privacy, and the Web that Never Forgets, (2011) 9 J. on Telecomm. and High Tech. L. 345.
Rosen, J., The Right to Be Forgotten, 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 88, February 13, 2012, online available at: http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/online/topics/64-SLRO-88.pdf
Rouvroy, A., Reinventer l’art d’oublier et de se faire oublier dans la de l’information? version augmentée, (2008) online available at: http://works.bepress.com/antoinette_rouvroy/5/ 
Traung, P., The Proposed New EU General Data Protection Regulation, (2012) CRi, issue 4, pp. 33-49.
Werro, F., ‘The Right to Inform v. the Right to be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash’, in: Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Christine Godt, Peter Rott, Leslie Jane Smith, (eds.), Liability in the Third Millenium, F.R.G., 2009, online available at: SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401357
Xanthoulis, N., Conceptualising a Right to Oblivion in the Digital World: A Human Rights-Based Approach (2012), online available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2064503

ADDITIONAL READING:

Ambrose, M.L./Friess, N./Matre,J.V., Seeking Digital Redemption: the Future of Forgiveness in the Internet Age, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 29  (2012).
Andrade, N. G. de, Right to Personal Identity: The Challenges of Ambient Intelligence and the Need for a New Legal Conceptualization,  in: S. Gutwirth et al (eds), Privacy and Data Protection. An Element of Choice (2011), pp. 65-97.
Blanchette, J.-F., The Noise in the Archive: Oblivion in the Age of Total Recall, in Gutwirth S. et al.(ed.), Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: an Element of Choice (2011), p. 25 ff.
Castellano, P, S., The right to be forgotten under European Law: A Constitutional debate, Lex Electronica, vol. 16.1 (Winter 2012).
Giannakaki, M., The right to be forgotten in the era of social media and cloud computing, in: Akrivopoulou C. and Garipidis N. (ed.), Human Rights and Risks in the Digital Era: Globalization and the Effects of Information Technologies, 2012, p. 11 ff.
Mayer-Schönberger, V., Usefull Void: The Art of Forgetting in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing, Working paper RWP07, John F. Kennedy, School of Government, Harvard University, April 2007, online available at: http://www.vmsweb.net/attachments/pdf/Useful_Void.pdf
Szekely, I., The Right to Forget, the Right to be Forgotten. Personal Reflections on the Fate of Personal Data in the Information Society, in: S. Gurwith et al (eds.), European Data Protection: In Good Health?, 2012.
Terwangne, C. de, Internet Privacy and the Right to Be Forgotten/Right to Oblivion, (2012) IDP Numero 13, pp. 109-121.
Walker, R., K., The Right to Be Forgotten, (2012) Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 64:101, pp. 257-286.
Warren, S & Brandeis, L., ‘The Right to Privacy’, (1890) Harvard Law Review, Vol. IV, December 15, 1890, No. 5.
Weber, R.H., The Right to Be Forgotten More Than a Pandora’s Box?, (2011) Jipitec 2, no. 2 (July 26), online available at: http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-2-2-2011/3084
Zittrain, J. L., The Future of the internet, And How to stop it, Virginia, Yale University Press 2008.

ENDNOTES:

1.       https://archive.org/web/
4.       In the conclusions agreed on at the European Council Meeting in Brussels it is mentioned that new EU data protection rules and a new cyber security framework are to be adopted “by 2015”, see: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/139197.pdf
5.       See J. Wakefield, Politican and paedophile ask Google to ‘be forgotten’, bbc.com, 15 May 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527
6.       ”Google launches ‘right to be forgotten’ webform for removal requests”, theguardian, Friday 30 May, 2014, www.theguardian.com
7.       See Dave Lee, Google faces data watchdogs over ‘right to be forgotten’,  http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28458194
8.         See J. Fioretti, Google under fire from regulators on Eu privacy ruling, Reuters, July 24, 2014.
9.       Case C-131/12, nr. 92-95.
10.   Op. cit., nr. 93.
11.   Op. cit., nr. 94.
12.   Op. cit., nr. 95.
13.   Op. cit., nr. 96.
14.   Op. cit., nr. 97.
15.   See ‘Microsoft and yahoo respond to European ‘right to be forgotten’ requests’, thequardian, 1 Dec. 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/01/microsoft-yahoo-right-to-be-forgotten

16.   See ‘Google to extend ‘right to be forgotten’ to all its domains accessed in EU’, the guardian 11 Febr. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be-forgotten-googlecom