Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34848
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Pilsudskis, Ernestas
Title: Teisė būti pamirštam, kaip sudėtinė EŽTK 8 straipsnyje įtvirtintų teisių dalis
Other Title: Right to be forgotten as intrinsic part of rights enshrined in ECHR article 8
Extent: 46 p.
Date: 1-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Teisė būti pamirštam;Teisė į informacinį apsisprendimą;Žmogaus orumas;Teisė būti pamirštam kaip informacinio apsisprendimo elementas;Right to be forgotten;Right to informational self-determination;Human dignity;Right to be forgotten as an element of informational self-determination
Abstract: Šių dienų technologija ir interneto tinklų infrastruktūra užtikrina greitą informacijos platinimą milžiniškoms interneto vartotojų auditorijoms. Paprastas interneto vartotojas skleisdamas informaciją internete turi galią formuoti kito asmens socialinę regimybę pasaulinėje auditorijoje, kas kartais gali sukelti neigiamas implikacijas informacijos subjekto normaliam socialiniam gyvenimui. Tam tikros informacijos kontrolę suteikia šiuo metu egzistuojantys specifiniai teisiniai institutai, kaip pavyzdžiui asmens atvaizdo, reputacijos, privatumo apsauga, tačiau šiame darbe polemizuojama, kad šių institutų nepakanka žmogaus teisėms užtikrinti modernioje visuomenėje ir tam tikros informacijos skleidimas, nors ir daro neigiamą įtaką asmens normaliam visuomeniniam gyvenimui, tačiau nepatenka į paminėtų teisinių institutų taikymo apimtį. Šiuo metu statutinėje teisėje įtvirtinti teisiniai institutai negalėtų užtikrinti informacijos kontrolės, pavyzdžiui, publikuotiems gėdingiems įvykiams, neigiamai charakterizuojamose internetiniuose komentaruose, ar internetinėse mėmėse. Visą šią informaciją galima lengvai pasiekti naudojantis paieškos varikliais, kas potencialiai gali pasunkinti socialinių santykių užmezgimą ir palaikymą, darbo paiešką ir t.t. Šios situacijos sprendimas galėtų būti Europos Teisingumo teismo (toliau – ETT) 2014 metų byloje Google Ispanija ir Google prieš AEPD suformuota „teisė būti pamirštam“, kuri suteikia nebeaktualios informacijos kontrolę. Tačiau tai būtų tik dalinis problemos sprendimas, kadangi šios teisės taikymas priklauso nuo laiko tėkmės kriterijaus ir realiuoju laiku plintančiai informacijai ši teisė negalėtų būti pritaikyta. Todėl šiame darbe teisė būti pamirštam interpretuojama plačiau, kaip informacinio apsisprendimo elementas, kurios taikymas nebesiejamas su laiko tėkmės kriterijumi. Šio darbo tikslas pateikti argumentus, kad teisė būti pamirštam, kaip informacinio apsisprendimo elementas, gali pagrįstai turėti konceptualų pagrindą Europos Žmogaus teisių konvencijos (toliau – EŽTK) 8 straipsnio doktrinoje. Remiantis tokia teise, asmuo galėtų ne tik kontroliuoti informaciją apie save, kuri nepatenka į tradicinių teisinių institutų, tokių kaip privataus gyvenimo, ar reputacijos apsaugos taikymo apimtį, bet ir kontroliuoti realiuoju laiku plintančią informaciją, kurią būtų sunku tapatinti su „pamiršimu“. Ieškant konceptualaus pagrindo teisei būti pamirštam kaip informacinio apsisprendimo elementui, analizė buvo pradėta nuo abstrakčiausios teisinės vertybės, kurios apimtyje operuota EŽTK 8 straipsnis. Kaip pabrėžia profesorius Whitman, ši teisinė vertybė yra žmogaus orumas, kuris EŽTK doktrinoje naudojamas kaip teisių šaltinis, bei interpretavimo instrumentas. Ši neaiškaus turinio teisinė abstrakcija, leidžia teismui išplėsti EŽTK 8 straipsnio taikymo apimtį, kai apsaugos negalima suteikti remiantis jokių kitų teisinių vertybių pažeidimu. Atlikus tyrimą, galima prieiti prie išvados, kad EŽTK 8 straipsnio doktrinoje galima rasti konceptualų pagrindą teisė būti pamirštam, kaip informacinio apsisprendimo elementui.
In 1995, the usage of internet in world’s population was less than 1% and today this number is around 40%. The rapid advancement in communication technology, prevalence of the internet and social networking sites dramatically changed not only the way we interact with each other but also the way we live our daily lives. Most of the information we share and post online are indexed by internet crawlers and are easily accessible with search engines. This free and easy access to information sometimes could hamper the possibility of employment or even could raise significant interference with normal social life. This paper presents issue, that some information, which could have a negative influence on normal social life or individual self-worth can not be controlled by existing legal institutes and therefore offered legal protection are insufficient in modern society. Some information for example about embarrassing faux pas, linguistically impropriate internet comments, internet memes or information, which was published in accordance with the public interest and after years lost its relevance can not be encompassed by privacy, reputation, image protection. Mentioned cases could not be encompassed by privacy protection because it focuses on intimate information, which is unknown to the public and for which person have the reasonable expectation of privacy. In addition, most of the information disseminated on the internet are user’s generated and therefore it does not reveal any elements, which could be considerate private. Reputation protection also could not offer protection in mentioned cases. Reputation protection offers control for information, which inaccurately or falsely depicts person’s behavioral patterns and therefore causes harm to person’s social representation. The defense in reputational claims is correctness of information, so it could not offer control for embarrassing faux pas, or internet memes. In this paper, so called the “right to be forgotten”, which was founded in landmark Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter – CJEU) case Google Spain and Google v. AEPD is presented as a solution for mentioned cases. CJEU derived the right to be forgotten from data protection directive’s principles and the right to data rectification provided by the directive. The right to be forgotten allows information subjects to request a removal of links, which can be found via search engines by person’s name basis if it meet’s certain criteria. As CJEU stresses, the person could gain the right to be forgotten then data is inadequate, irrelevant or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing, that they are not kept up to date, or that they are kept for longer than is necessary unless they are required to be kept for historical, statistical or scientific purposes. But then we talk about the right to be forgotten in the traditional sense, this right allows only to “forget” past and information spreading in real time can not be an object of this right’s realization. Because of the need to control real time spreading information, which could cause a negative influence on everyday life, this paper presents a broader interpretation of the right to be forgotten, which is not conditioned by the passage of time criteria. In this paper, this form of right is called the right to be forgotten as an element of informational self-determination, which grants control not only to outdated information but also to real-time spreading information, which could cause a negative influence on normal social life or individual self-worth. In this sense, it could be called the right to stop disseminating information, which is illegal to disseminate. The paper also briefly analyses German’s Constitutional court created personality rights doctrine, which offers a wide range of protection for individual rights. Through the development of this doctrine German’s Constitutional court created the right to informational self-determination, which grants person’s control over their information. This control on information is not solely concentrated on privacy and it also safeguards personality development and autonomy interests. The main focus of this paper is to find a conceptual basis for information control similar to mentioned right to informational self-determination in article 8 of the European convention on human rights (hereinafter – ECHR) doctrine. As Professor James Whitman stresses, European privacy tradition is based on the concept of human dignity, which imparts higher interpersonal interaction standards. Although EHCR article 8 disposition explicitly does not contain words “human dignity” but it’s scope was extended through jurisprudence. Because of this abstract and vague human dignity conception, court through judicial interpretation can find a basis for protection of values, which can hardly be considerate solely as privacy interest. As developed through jurisprudence, article 8 of ECHR encompasses such interest’s as human development, relations with other persons, identity, moral integrity etc. Even more, findings in this paper imply that human dignity imposes an obligation on the state to protect individual self-worth and normal social life, which can be violated when an individual can not control information about himself. The support of the thesis, that article 8 of ECHR could contain the right to be forgotten as an element of informational self-determination, is done in two ways: first, article 8 of ECHR was compared to German’s personality doctrine, which contains right to informational self-determination. Findings of this paper concludes that article 8 of ECHR and German’s personality doctrine have a lot of similarities, for example they both have common conceptual value – human dignity, the scope of applicability also have a lot of similarities, for example in both doctrines we can identify protection of values such as personal development, social relationships, moral integrity and social representation of person. The second method to support thesis is done by measurement of information control, which is granted by article 8 of ECHR. By the analysis of ECtHR jurisprudence, 3 types of informational control were distinguished from requirements of human dignity: information, which relatively violates human rights or human dignity; information, which per se violates human rights or human dignity; information, which is no longer relevant. Analysis of scope of information control concludes that article 8 of ECHR already contains various forms of information control, which combined grant control not only to outdated information but also to information, which is spreading in real time. The study leads to the conclusion that article 8 of ECHR reasonably could contain the right to be forgotten as an element of informational self-determination, which could grant informational control not only to outdated information but also to real-time spreading information about the person.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34848
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34848
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

92
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

138
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.