![]() One has to acquire this right from the controller and the controller isĭuty bound to delete the data in question. It states that, the person to whom the data is concerned with, have the right to get his or her data deleted without any undue delay. Right to erasure in the general data protection regulationĪrticle 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation deals with right to erasure. The Court found that the fundamental right to privacy is greater than the economic interest of the commercial firm and, in some circumstances, the public interest in access to Information. The European Court of Justice ruled that the European citizens have a right to request that commercial search engines, such as Google, that gather personal information for profit should remove links to private information when asked, provided the information is no longer relevant. It, however, upheld the complaint against Google, finding that Internet search engines are also subject to data protection laws and must take necessary steps to protect personal information. The Data Protection Agency disregarded the complaint against the newspaper on the saying that the publication of the article was according to the government orders. González demanded the data to be deleted as it was no longer vital or pertinent for anyone. González wanted the newspaper to remove or alter the record of his 1998 attachment and garnishment proceedings so that the information would no longer be available through Internet search engines. In March 2010, Spanish national Costeja González brought a complaint before the country’s Data Protection Agency against La Vanguardia newspaper, Google Spain, and Google Inc. Right to erasure was acknowledged by the European Union’s Court of Justice in the case of Google Spain SL, Google Inc. ![]() The right to erasure which is a counterpart of the right to privacy was certainly affected by this privacy policy. So when the company declared its new privacy policy they knew that one day or other the users will have to agree with the terms and conditions as the application has become an essential part of people’s life. With more than 1.5 million users in India, whatsapp puts itself in a dominant position. But in India the lack of such laws give opportunity to social media applications to access and use the user data without any trouble. In 2016 the General Data Protection Regulation superseded the 1995 directive, and strengthens the privacy laws in the European Union. The European Union was aware of the upcoming threats which were associated with the advancement of technology they prepared European Data protection Directive in the year 1995 it set the optimum criterion for the requirement of data protection. The dawn of technology also gave birth to the intimidation allied with it. This research paper also suggests implementing Uncompromising and stringent policies for the intermediaries by the government to create a deterrent effect. The findings of this research show that the weak and insufficient provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 with Information Technology 2018 are the main reason that India remain to fail in protecting the Indian users of such applications. (b) The role of intermediary in the protection of the right to erasure. (a) The contradiction between the privacy policy of WhatsApp and right to erasure But when WhatsApp introduced its new privacy policy it seemed to be in paradox with the fundamental right of privacy as well as right to be forgotten. Recognizing the importance of this right, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 introduced the right to be forgotten in India. This right came to limelight from the Google Spain case paving its way through the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation). Right to erasure derives its roots from Europe and has grown worldwide.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |