The Right to be The Right to be Forgotten Forgotten Engineering - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

the right to be the right to be forgotten forgotten
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The Right to be The Right to be Forgotten Forgotten Engineering - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CyLab The Right to be The Right to be Forgotten Forgotten Engineering & Public Policy Rebecca Balebako September 4, 2014 y & c S a e v c i u r P r i t e y l b L a a s b U o 8-533 / 8-733 / 19-608 / 95-818:


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

The Right to be The Right to be Forgotten Forgotten

Rebecca Balebako

September 4, 2014 8-533 / 8-733 / 19-608 / 95-818: Privacy Policy, Law, and Technology

C y L a b U s a b l e P r i v a c y & S e c u r i t y L a b

  • r

a t

  • r

y H T T P : / / C U P S . C S . C M U . E D U

Engineering & Public Policy

CyLab

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Today’s Agenda

  • Quiz
  • Homework Discussion
  • Homework 2
  • Introduction to “Right to Be Forgotten”
  • Discussion on some theoretical cases
  • Other concerns with the Right to be

Forgotten

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Homework 1 discussion

  • Paraphrasing and plagiarism
  • Collage
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Plagiarism?

  • Conceptions of privacy underpin nearly every argument made about privacy,

including the "nothing to hide" argument, which represents a singular and narrow way of conceiving privacy. If we do not exclude from consideration the

  • ther problems raised in government surveillance and data mining programs,

the "nothing to hide" argument is a loser (Solove 2007).

  • Solove (2007) writes that the "nothing to hide" argument misses important

dimensions of privacy and results in a very narrowly focused debate. He argues that when we consider privacy more broadly, we see that this argument "has nothing to say."

  • As Solove (2007) writes, conceptions of privacy are at the root of nearly every

argument ever made about privacy, causing people to talk past each other when discussing privacy issues. We can better address privacy problems by focusing more specifically on the related problems. Rather than using the singular and narrow "nothing to hide" argument, we should confront the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Homework 2 Due Sept 16

  • CTIA Best Practices and Guidelines for Location Based Services
  • The Privacy Act of 1974
  • The Federal Wiretap Act
  • The Fair Credit Reporting Act
  • HIPPA
  • The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act
  • The Video Privacy Protection Act
  • Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
  • Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
  • CPNI rules
  • Cable TV Privacy Act
  • California SB-1386
  • White House Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
  • NTIA Privacy Multistakeholder Process on Mobile Application

Transparency

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

By the end of class, you will be able to:

  • Understand the EU Ruling on the Right to

Be Forgotten

  • Be able to discuss and critique the ruling
slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Why shouldn’t we forget or delete data?

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Why should we forget?

  • Chance to outgrow youthful indiscretions
  • We judge others more harshly than we

judge ourselves

  • Rehabilitation into society
  • Humans have not evolved to remember

everything

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

European Court of Justice May 13 2014 Ruing

  • 1. Territoriality of EU Rules
  • 2. On the applicability of EU data protection

rules to a search engine

  • 3. On the “Right to be Forgotten”
slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Territoriality of EU Rules

  • If they have a branch or a subsidiary in a

Member State which promotes the selling of advertising space offered by the search engine

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Applicability of EU data protection rules to search engines

  • European Court of Justice determined that

Google is a “data controller”

  • Google has responsibility to maintain quality

and accuracy of data

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Right to be Forgotten

  • Individuals have the right - under certain

conditions - to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Applies when information is

  • Inaccurate
  • Inadequate
  • Irrelevant
  • Excessive
slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Case by case assessment

  • Balanced against other fundamental rights

(freedom of expression and media)

  • Type of information
  • Sensitivity for the individual’s private life
  • Interest of the public in having access to

information

  • Role the person requesting the deletion

place in public life

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Remove a link from specific search results

  • Does not remove content
  • Does not remove link from all searches
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

How would you decide?

  • Case 1: Joseph Blackheart Arrested for

Indecent Exposure to Minors

  • Case 2: Wolfgang Werlé convicted for

murdering a man

  • Case 3: Google employee fired for reading

gmail accounts of high school girls

  • Case 4: Youth rugby player does steriods
slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Case 1: Arrested for Indecent Exposure to Minors

  • Italian student hopes to be a teacher
  • After a night of drinking, walked home
  • Urinated on wall, not realizing it was a

school wall

  • Paid a large fine
  • 5 years ago
slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Case 2: Wolfgang Werlé convicted for murdering a man

  • German citizen
  • Convicted of murdering a business

associate

  • Claimed to be innocent
  • Served 17 years of jail time, now released
slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Case 3: Google employee fired for reading gmail accounts

  • US citizen, currently residing in Ireland
  • As Google employee, member of team that

had access to gmail accounts, was fired

  • Met girls through volunteer work in

community

  • 7 years later, married with children
slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Case 4: Youth rugby player does steroids

  • 16-year old rugby player on English national

team

  • Convicted of doing steroids, removed from

team

  • Now 18 years old, trying out for adult

leagues

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Group Discussion

  • Case 1: Joseph Blackheart

Arrested for Indecent Exposure to Minors

  • Case 2: Wolfgang Werlé

convicted for murdering a man

  • Case 3: Google employee fired

for reading gmail account of high school girl

  • Case 4: Youth rugby player

does steroids

  • Balanced against other

fundamental rights (freedom of expression and media)

  • Type of information
  • Sensitivity for the individual’s

private life

  • Interest of the public in having

access to information

  • Role the person requesting the

deletion place in public life

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Who should make these decisions

  • Paralegals hired by Google
  • Information Commissioner in relevant

country

  • Courts
slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Technical Questions

  • Location?
  • Targeting?
slide-24
SLIDE 24

C y L a b U s a b l e P r i v a c y & S e c u r i t y L a b

  • r

a t

  • r

y H T T P : / / C U P S . C S . C M U . E D U

Engineering & Public Policy

CyLab