Timing the Right to Be Forgotten: A Study into “Time” as a Factor in Deciding About Retention or Erasure of Data

Abstract

The so-called "Right to Be Forgotten or Erasure" (RTBF), article 17 of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation, provides individuals with a means to oppose the often persistent digital memory of the Web. Because digital information technologies affect the accessibility of information over time and time plays a fundamental role in biological forgetting, 'time' is a factor that should play a pivotal role in the RTBF. This chapter explores the roles that 'time' plays and could play in decisions regarding the retention or erasure of data. Two roles are identified:(1) 'time' as the marker of a discrete moment where the grounds for retention no longer hold and 'forgetting' of the data should follow and (2) 'time' as a factor P. Korenhof ( )

Search Engines and Data Retention: Implications for Privacy and Antitrust

“…Our results also suggest that restrictions to data retention provoked by privacy concerns may impose fewer costs if directed at limits on the recency of data (e.g, "right to be forgotten" policies). More generally, the length of data retention has become an issue in this debate over privacy (Korenhof et al, 2014). The question is whether the benefits of privacy (less data retention) for consumers outweigh any potential costs to consumers (lower quality search results).…”

“…In the European Union in particular, this "right to be forgotten," has been gaining increasing traction as a potential foundation of privacy regulation (Bennett, 2012) 3 . As pointed out by Korenhof et al (2014) the timing of data retention plays a part in this debate as longer periods of data retention make it difficult for digitally recorded actions to be forgotten. As US policymakers, companies, and consumers keep an eye towards developments in the EU, concerns exist over whether legal actions abroad could "take over the American Internet, too" (Dewey, 2015).…”

Search Engines and Data Retention: Implications for Privacy and Antitrust

“…has been gaining increasing traction as a potential foundation of privacy regulation (Bennett, 2012) 3 . As pointed out by Korenhof et al (2014) the timing of data retention plays a part in this debate as longer periods of data retention make it difficult for digitally recorded actions to be forgotten. As US policymakers, companies, and consumers keep an eye towards developments in the EU, concerns exist over whether legal actions abroad could "take over the American Internet, too" (Dewey, 2015).…”

A Three-Year Study of the GDPR and the Consumer

“…The GDPR Article 17: The right to erasure, also known as 'The right to be forgotten', has gained interest. For example, Mantelero points out that it is not anything new and can be traced back to Warren and Brandeis in 1890 (Mantelero, 2013), while others discuss practical difficulties in removing data posted on the Internet (Koops, 2011;Korenhof et al, 2015). In addition, the GDPR does not give individuals the right to be completely forgotten.…”