The internet never forgives you. Your mischief, your blunders, and everything else that makes it onto the internet stays there forever! Or, does it?
This is the underlying premise behind the question – do you have a data protection act right to be forgotten?
In 1995, the European Union enforced a Data Protection Directive for its state’s ordinary users. Users may now demand that services like Google remove their information when it was no longer required, thanks to this directive.
These directives were clear about the circumstances under which these companies had to answer such a request. After a good 13 years since the laws were updated, the GDPR Right to be forgotten is upon us. This law is more granular in approach and has modified the definition of a citizen’s right to be forgotten.
What is the 1995 Protection Directive?
The Data Protection Directive of 1995 alludes to the European Union Data Protection Directive of 1995, which established guidelines for processing and safeguarding personal data within the EU. It is also occasionally called the 1995 Protection Directive.
RTBF and GDPR: User Empowerment and Data Deletion Responsibilities
Think of GDPR as 1995 Data Protection Directive Right to be Forgotten. They are still empowered to place a request to the companies to delete their data. But, that’s not where it ends. Users will have a larger say over how their personal information is used and how it is collected. Companies have an obligation to swiftly process data deletion requests once they have been received from customers.
‘Undue delays’ are not acceptable. Not only this, if the company has put the data in the public domain, it has to inform all the other companies using that data about the deletion request. They have to ensure this happens by taking the necessary steps, including technical measures. If the data is utilised in the public interest or to meet legal requirements, organisations can keep it.
Google’s ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Legal Battle
Google’s presence is necessary for the passage of a privacy protection law. In the High Court of England and Wales, two people (NT1 and NT2) brought a lawsuit against the internet giant over their right to erasure.
Rather than search results, it would like them to be called “journalism,” which would allow it to avoid complying with privacy rules. UK Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has criticised Google’s approach. She expresses concern that Google will be able to skirt the law with little to no scrutiny if this line of reasoning is upheld.
Data Transparency and User Rights
This is a reasonable point of argument due to the fact that large platforms such as Google home GDPR do not exist anymore.Websites must exercise extreme caution when collecting personal information from users and must disclose the intended use of any data collected.
Moreover, where else they are giving the user’s information. They are reluctant to provide all these details to the user to avoid facing hefty penalties.
Localities now have more power to have knowledge about what websites are using their information for. In addition, the users should have the ability to decide whether such companies should keep their data.
Conclusion
The demand for “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) has become excessive in this digitally evolving world. It has evolved from the 1995 Protection Directive to the GDPR to give individuals more power and demand more data transparency.
The ongoing legal struggle involving Google highlights how important it is to define boundaries in an age driven by data. The need for audit and user control is becoming more popular than it has ever been as websites are still accumulating enormous amounts of data.
