15 Chi.-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1 (2015)

handle is hein.journals/chkjicl15 and id is 1 raw text is: 







                          Google v. Spain:
                   A  Right To Be Forgotten?


                           Ignacio   Cofone*


                                Abstract
The  comment  shows  that the recent decision in Google v. Spain does not
rule on  the right to be forgotten, but rather  on the liability of search
engines   under  the  rights and   obligations established  in  the Data
Protection Directive. It then makes a brief evaluation on the case arguing
that the decision fails to offer a consistent balance between the right to
privacy and  the freedom of expression.


                              Introduction
        The right to be forgotten was popularized in the public debate by
Mayer-Schonberger's   book  Delete.' The book argued  that one of the main
problems  with  data storage is that it lacks the human  characteristic of
forgetting.2 The book also introduced the right to forget, proposing that
all information should have  an expiration date.3 Policymakers, especially
in the European Union  (EU), were  sympathetic to the concept.4
        The right to be forgotten  extends to the internet the old French
droit a l'oubli and the Italian diritto al' oblio regarding criminal records-
sometimes   called right to oblivion, and literally translatable as right to
forget. Both  rights were affirmed  by courts based  on the constitutional
dispositions stating that prison has the aim of social reinsertion, and it is in
the interest of both social reinsertion and the privacy of people who were


* Erasmus University Rotterdam (European Doctorate in Law and Economics). I am
grateful to Tobias Hlobil, Stephan Michel, Sharon Oded, Pablo del Rio and Ann-Sophie
Vandenberghe for helpful comments and discussions. The standard disclaimer applies.
Contact: cofonealaw.eur.nl. Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
1 Some precedents can be seen before that in reviews of European legal thought regarding
privacy. See e.g. David H. Flaherty, Controlling Surveillance: Can Privacy Protection be
Made Effective?, in TECHNOLOGY & PRIVACY: THE NEW LANDSCAPE 167, 172 (Philip E.
Agre and Marc Rotenberg eds., Cambridge, MIT press, 1998); Jean-Frangois Blanchette
& Deborah G. Johnsson, Data Retention and the Panoptic Society: the Social Benefits of
Forgetfulness, 18(1) THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 33 (2002).
2 See Viktor Mayer-Schinberger, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL
AGE  92-127 (2009).
3 See id. at 169-195.
4 See Jeffrey Rosen, The Right to be Forgotten, 64 STANFORD LAW REVIEW ONLINE 88,
89 (2012).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?