The right to be forgotten. European and international perspectives.
summary
The CJEU finds search engines as controllers and requires delisting when results are inadequate, irrelevant or excessive, not just inaccurate; Google logs about 200,000 requests / 730,000 URLs, 40% removed while copyright takedowns total ~345 million yearly, showing scale differences. Courts in Tokyo apply similar logic (one judgment orders 122 removals out of 237 links). Practical debates focus on EU-only delisting, technical fixes like robots.txt, and appeal routes through national DPAs (DPA appeal). Implementation and cross‑border consistency remain unresolved.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (5)
- 0:00Start
- 0:12Ronald Leenes TILT/PI.Lab (NL)
- 10:45Artemi Rallo Lombarte Jaume University (SP)
- 24:35Hiroshi Miyashita Chuo University (JP)
- 48:48Anna Fielder Privacy International (UK)
related talks
16mReflections on recent privacy trends
17mDigital Agenda
01h 09mStrip-searching the internet - upload filters and generalised monitoring ...
01h 16mEnforcing the EU’s Digital Laws Delivering European Tech Policies that serve People...
01h 16mThe role and power of DPAS - Between CJEU and GDPR.
01h 12mCOLLATERAL DAMAGES OF ENFORCEMENT – DIGITAL SERVICES ACT, NETWORK ENFORCEMENT ACT, AND LOI AVIA
01h 10mWhat about data retention?
01h 13mWe need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection.