The Right to be Forgotten: The Potential Effects on Canadian
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5931/djim.v15i0.8981Abstract
Since the introduction of the right to be forgotten to European law in 2014, many Western countries have contemplated whether the right could be applied to their citizens. In October 2018, Canada‘s Privacy Commissioner asked the Federal Court of Canada to decide if the right is a Canadian fundamental right. However, the right to be forgotten has caused a lot of issues in Europe due to its vagueness and if Canada‘s Federal Court rules in favour of making the right a Canadian right, changes will need to be made to it to protect Canadian archives. This paper explores the right to be forgotten and discuss the potential effects the right may have on Canadian archives by exploring the origins of the right, how third-party search engines are currently handling the right, Canadian laws and policies surrounding privacy and the right to know and Canadian archival practices.References
Arthur, C. (2014, May 14). Explaining the “right to be forgotten” – The newest cultural shibboleth. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com.
Bloomberg. (2018, October 19). Rep. Khanna says EU “right to be forgotten” unconstitutional. Bloomberg Technology. Retrieved from www.bloomberg.com.
Chhabra, S. (2018, October 10). Privacy watchdog asks federal court rule on Google de-indexing question. Mobliesyrup. Retrieved from www.mybilesyrup.com.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2014, May 13). Judgement in case C-131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonazalez. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62012CJ0131.
European Parliament. (1995, November 23). Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal 281, 0031-0050. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX%3A31995L0046%3AEN%3AHTML.
European Union. (1957, March 25). Treaty establishing the European community (Consolidated version). Official Journal C 325, 0033-0184. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12002E%2FTXT.
Google. (2018a, November 8). Transparency report: Search removals under European privacy law. Retrieved from https://transparencyreport.google.com/eu-privacy/overview?hl=en.
Google. (2018b). Removing information from Google. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?hl=en.
Google Advisory Council. (2015). Read the Advisory Council‘s final report: How should one person‘s right to be forgotten be balanced with the public‘s right to information? Retrieved from https://archive.google.com/advisorycouncil/.
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions [IFLA]. (2012, August). IFLA code of ethics for librarians and other information workers (full version). International Federations of Library Associations and Institutions. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11092.
Jarvis, J. (2014, May 13). EU‘s “right to be forgotten” is a blow against free speech. Gu.com/p/3p75b. [Twitter post]. Retrieved from www.twitter.com.
La Vanguardia. (2014, May 14). Mario Costeja, the Spaniard who defeated the almighty Google. La Vanguardia. Retrieved from https://www.lavanguardia.com/tecnologia/internet/20140514/54407896513/mario-costeja-google.html.
Lavoipierre, A., & Smiley, S. (2018, July 23). The nightmare of mopping up your online reputation and the “right to be forgotten.” ABC News. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au.
Lecher, C. (March 1, 2019). Facebook, Twitter, and Google still aren‘t doing enough about disinformation, EU says. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/1/18246526/facebook-twitter-google-social-media-disinformation-europe.
McCarville, J. (2004). Balancing access and privacy in archives: New challenges in the face of Canadian privacy legislation. Feliciter, 50(4), 149-153.
Meyer, D. (2018, September 10). The “right to be forgotten,” globally? How Google is fighting to limit the scope of Europe‘s privacy law. Fortune. Retrieved from www.fortune.com.
Mount, E., & Newman, W. (1985). Top secret/Trade secret: Restricting and accessing information. Collection Building 7(2), 3-7.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2018, January 31). Summary of privacy laws in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/.
Parliament of Canada. (1983, July 1). Privacy act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21). Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/index.html.
Parliament of Canada. (1985, July). Access to information act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1). Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/.
Parliament of Canada. (2000, April 13). Personal information protection and electronic documents act. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/pipeda_brief/.
Parliament of Canada. (2015, June 18) Digital privacy act (S.C. 2015, C. 32). Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2015_32/page-1.html.
Sillitoe, P. (1998). Privacy in a public place: Managing public access to personal information controlled by archives services. Journal of the society of archivists, 19(1): 5-15. DOI: 10.1080/00379819809514418
Statistics Canada. (2000, January 6). Final report of the expert panel on access to historical census records. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/English/census01/Info/chief.cfm.
Thomson, S. (2018, October 10). Will Canadians soon have the “right to be forgotten” online? Here‘s what you need to know. Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved from www.ottawacitizen.com.
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration [NARA]. (2004, June). Technical guidelines for digitizing archival materials for electronic access: Creation of production master files – Raster images. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/files/preservation/technical/guidelines.pdf.
Van Eecke, P. (2016, June 3). Belgium: High court decision on the right to be forgotten. Technology‘s Legal Edge. Retrieved from https://www.technologyslegaledge.com/2016/06/belgium-high-court-decision-on-right-to-be-forgotten/.
Vavra, A.N. (2018). The right to be forgotten: An archival perspective. American Archivist, 81(1). 100-111. DOI: 10.17723/0360-9081-81.1.100
Wales, J. (2014, May 13). When will a European court demand that Wikipedia censor an article with truthful information because an individual doesn‘t like it? [Twitter Post]. Retrieved from www.twitter.com.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Papers published in the Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management must be the original, unpublished work of the author. Contributors are responsible for obtaining any copyright clearances required in relation to their work.
Authors submitting a paper to the Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management automatically agree to grant a limited license to DJIM if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. This license gives permission for DJIM to publish the paper in a given issue and to maintain the work in the electronic journal archive. DJIM also submits issues to institutional repositories and Open Access repositories.
Contributors agree to each reader accessing, downloading, or printing one copy of their article for their own personal use or research. All other copyrights remain with the author, subject to the requirements that any republication of the work be accompanied by an acknowledgement that the work was first published in the Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management and that the DJIM Editorial Chair must be notified of any republication of a work first published in DJIM.
Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management
c/o School of Information Management
Faculty of Management
Dalhousie University
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building
6100 University Avenue
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3J5
Canada
Email: djim@dal.ca
Authors should recognize that, because of the nature of the Internet, the publisher has no control over unauthorized copying or editing of protected works.
