Data Subjects' Privacy Rights: Regulation of Personal Data Retention and Erasure
![handle is hein.journals/ucollr90 and id is 627 raw text is:
DATA SUBJECTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS:
REGULATION OF PERSONAL DATA
RETENTION AND ERASURE
ALEXANDER TSESIS*
The European Union's right to erasure came into effect
May 25, 2018, as Article 17 of the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR).1 Unlike the U.S. marketplace of ideas
model of free speech,2 the GDPR gives greater weight to data
subjects' privacy interests than to audiences' curiosity about
others' intimate lives. The U.S. and EU models advance human
thirst for knowledge through open and uninhibited debates,
whereas the internet marketplace tends to favor social media
companies' commercial interests: put more specifically, free
speech is not entirely harmonious with the interests of social
media intermediaries whose algorithms tend to favor compa-
nies' bottom lines rather than strictly the expansion of knowl-
edge.
European law is less tolerant of privacy invasions than is
U.S. constitutional jurisprudence. The GDPR prohibits com-
mercial digital entities from disseminating more information to
third-party listeners than is necessary for carrying out a
transaction. This regulatory scheme aims to balance the confli-
* Raymond & Mary Simon Chair in Constitutional Law and Professor of Law,
Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
1. Commission Regulation 2016/679, art. 17, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1, 4, eur-
lex.europa.eullegal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016RO679 [https://perma
.cc/9QUL-6Y84 [hereinafter GDPR].
2. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first developed the marketplace of ideas
doctrine in a dissent:
[M]en ... may come to believe even more than they believe the very
foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better
reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of
the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be
carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). For an
extended critique of the doctrine, see Alexander Tsesis, Free Speech
Constitutionalism, 2015 U. ILL. L. REV. 1015, 1038-42.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ucollr90&div=19&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Data Subjects' Privacy Rights: Regulation of Personal Data Retention and Erasure
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most