Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
We’ll also spend part of this day describing the final project for the class, and discuss how to pick a good community and issue to study for the project. | We’ll also spend part of this day describing the final project for the class, and discuss how to pick a good community and issue to study for the project. | ||
Our guest this week is Berkman staffer [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who oversees the operations of several projects, including [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects], which tracks legal threats against online speech. | |||
==Readings== | ==Readings== |
Revision as of 11:42, 17 February 2015
February 24
The Court of Justice of the European Union made big waves last May when it ruled against Google on a claim brought by a Spanish citizen asserting a right to remove two news articles that appeared in Google search results when he searched for his own name. The case, now known as the case that recognized the “right to be forgotten,” has come to the forefront of discussions of online privacy. In today’s class, we’ll explore the “right to be forgotten,” how it applies in Europe, whether it could ever come to the United States, and how international companies address competing national balances over privacy and free speech.
We’ll also spend part of this day describing the final project for the class, and discuss how to pick a good community and issue to study for the project.
Our guest this week is Berkman staffer Adam Holland, who oversees the operations of several projects, including Chilling Effects, which tracks legal threats against online speech.
Readings
Optional Readings
- Gonzalez v. Google (ECJ decision) (optional reading, but highly recommended)