right to beforgotten

Could you miss out on a job because recruiters find sordid parts of your past on the web? How do you think you would feel if private photos shared on Facebook made their way into your working life? In those cases, you would probably like to benefit from the “right to be forgotten”! But does technology really allow us to delete data from the web? And is it always that easy to tell public and private information apart?

The right to be forgotten versus freedom of expression: join the debate!

76
%
of global consumers said privacy of personal data is a top issue. In the U.S., the figure is 83%.
277
K
The number of people who log in to Facebook every minute worldwide.
93
%
of people agreed with the statement: "Data should only be used...
93% of people agreed with the statement: "Data should only be used by a company for the purpose in which it was collected".
10
The number of days it took in general to generate as much data in 2014 as the entire year 2013.
71
%
of millennials are concerned about sharing personal…
71% of millennials are concerned about sharing personal data, less than other generations: 84% of Gen-Xers and 87% of Boomers.
43
%
of Internet Users say they have been asked for more personal information than necessary.
204
million
The number of e-mails exchanged worldwide each minute.
47
%
of people will share information if they can see a benefit to sharing.
½
More than 1 in 2 agree with the statement...
More than 1 in 2 agree with the statement: "If I had the ability to prevent the harmful uses of data, I would be more willing to let companies use data about me."
68
%
of people say the biggest driver for sharing information is saving money.

Make up your mind !

Do you know where your data goes?

Information technology has become a ubiquitous presence. By visualizing the processes that underlie our interactions with this technology we can trace what happens to the information we feed into the network.

Your life in pixels

Despite concerns over privacy, data mining is increasingly popular with private companies who use the information to learn more about their consumers.

Malte Spitz: Fight for privacy is the 21st century challenge

Malte Spitz became famous all over the world by asking his phone company to provide him with a copy of the information it had stored about him. Multiple unanswered requests and a lawsuit later, Spitz received 35.830 lines of code - a detailed, nearly minute-by-minute account of half a year of his life. This video from 2012 helped spark debate worldwide.

What they say

Jacques Attali
Economist and Writer
The right must be rewritten: Personal data needs to be directly protected by law, not just in the name of protecting privacy, but as commercial property.  More generally speaking, everyone must be considered the owner of his or her own life and actions; nothing that we make should be available to be used or sold by others without our agreeing to give it away altruistically, or to sell it.
The right must be rewritten: Personal data needs to be directly protected by law, not just in the name of protecting privacy, but as commercial property.  More generally speaking, everyone must be considered the owner of his or her own life and actions; nothing that we make should be available to be used or sold by others without our agreeing to give it away altruistically, or to sell it.
Blog L'Express
2 
Daniel Kaplan
General Delegate - FING (French New generation Internet foundation)
Trust is not restored simply by giving people their data. You need to offer them applications that do something useful.
Trust is not restored simply by giving people their data. You need to offer them applications that do something useful.
Usine Digitale
2 
Jules Polonetsky
Executive Director - Future of Privacy Forum
If someone can tell search engines, news aggregators or maybe bloggers, 'Sorry, that information tells us about some individual, that individual doesn't want to be found, [so] you need to take it down,' the effects really could be dramatic. It breaks the Internet.
If someone can tell search engines, news aggregators or maybe bloggers, 'Sorry, that information tells us about some individual, that individual doesn't want to be found, [so] you need to take it down,' the effects really could be dramatic. It breaks the Internet.
Voice of America
1 
Isabelle Musnik
Founder and managing director - INFluencia
Should we be suspicious? Are we going to lose or gain some of our humanity? It is still difficult to take stock of the consequences of this inexorable phenomenon. But one thing is certain: People are at the center of the process. We will share in the success or responsibility for whatever will come in tomorrow's world, for every one of our decisions as individuals, brands, or media outlets.
Should we be suspicious? Are we going to lose or gain some of our humanity? It is still difficult to take stock of the consequences of this inexorable phenomenon. But one thing is certain: People are at the center of the process. We will share in the success or responsibility for whatever will come in tomorrow's world, for every one of our decisions as individuals, brands, or media outlets.
INFluencia
2 
Edouard Geffray
Secretary General - CNIL (French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty)
The idea is to directly link this right to be delisted with the right to have data erased: As soon as I have secured the right to erase information, logic would have it that I also have the right to be removed from search results.
The idea is to directly link this right to be delisted with the right to have data erased: As soon as I have secured the right to erase information, logic would have it that I also have the right to be removed from search results.
ZDnet
0 
Denis Peschanski
Historian
If we go down the road of destroying personal data, we are doomed to become a society without memory.
If we go down the road of destroying personal data, we are doomed to become a society without memory.
France Info
1 
Serge Tisseron
Psychologist, Psychiatrist, and Psychoanalyst
The idea of controlling one's own image in all cases is incompatible with digital culture, and the ability to erase whatever is deemed undesirable might quickly created more problems than it would supposedly solve. It's not just that this might encourage all sorts of youthful indiscretions, but that it might also contribute to concealing from us the irreversibility of our actions. Do it, erase it, it's like it never happened!
The idea of controlling one's own image in all cases is incompatible with digital culture, and the ability to erase whatever is deemed undesirable might quickly created more problems than it would supposedly solve. It's not just that this might encourage all sorts of youthful indiscretions, but that it might also contribute to concealing from us the irreversibility of our actions. Do it, erase it, it's like it never happened!
Liberation
2 
Raphaël de Andreis
CEO, Havas Media France
The only future we can foresee is one with an explicit, well-understood dialogue with people who agree to grant access to their personal information or anonymized behaviors in return for content, services, or ease of use.
The only future we can foresee is one with an explicit, well-understood dialogue with people who agree to grant access to their personal information or anonymized behaviors in return for content, services, or ease of use.
Usine Digitale
1 
Eric Barbry
Lawyer, information technology specialist
It is necessary to set frameworks of technical standards in order to allow individuals to control their own information. There need to be procedures in place to prevent digital rights from remaining a pipe dream.
It is necessary to set frameworks of technical standards in order to allow individuals to control their own information. There need to be procedures in place to prevent digital rights from remaining a pipe dream.
01.net
0 

What about you?

What we think

Gaëtan Le Guelvouit
Manager Digital Trust & Identity Lab
2 
Being able to control their personal data and their content is a legitimate demand of users of Internet giants' services. But it faces a legal framework still under construction, and also technical difficulties. With big data and countless indexing and duplication services, can a piece of data really be deleted nowadays? Are we only limited to make it less accessible? The DT&I laboratory tackles legal and technical aspects to propose new approaches to give control back to users. But the difficulties are exacerbated by the huge economic stakes behind the personal data. Because remember: "If you're not paying for it, you are the product".
Your e-mail adress will not be revealed on this website
Hi Sylvain, I see we have the same favorite movies ;-) I completely agree with your proposal for a centralized personal data portal. In fact, we are currently working on it through a Ph.D. thesis and a collaboration we started last year. The main idea is to offer Internet users a way to track their personal data and to control their diffusion. We first focus on personal pictures, but it may be extended to any multimedia stuff. Nevertheless, since this kind of tools should be positioned over-the-top of service platforms, it would not be welcomed by Internet actors whose business model is based on personal data. But we also believe that the evolution of legal framework will help the emergence of tools like that, and thus enforce Internet giants to accept them.
Reasonable internet users get a reasonable deal: they give away their data in return for free services. If you’re not paying for something online, you’re the product. Or rather, your data is.
Hi Gaëtan, I agree with you and specially with your last sentence that reminds me a Guy Ritchie movie^^. I think that people should have a way to find back their data and even destroy their numeric identity. After all, it is their own. A simple case would just be to be able erase the numeric id of a dead person asked from family, but first you have to be able to find the datas. Basically people have very often more than one email adress, have subsribed to many website and it becomes really difficult to have a memory of everything you do on Internet. Currently each people is in charge of it is own memory on Internet but there no frontier in it and laws about privacy and protection are not the same everywhere. One idea could be to create a platform that could whatchover your datas on Internet. People interested would let this platform being your unique access point to your numeric identity. So you would centralize your accounts on this platform that would create and publish your identity on Internet. Therefore it would let you know about what is done with your numeric profil and offer you services like tatoo your pictures, videos and datas with one unique certificate or key. So you would track them if you need to remove their access or just follow them. Maybe one day we will get id card including a numeric certificate that would be used to represent us and have legal rights on the Web.
Gustav Malis
Digital Trust & Identity Lab
2 
The question is complicated on a legal level since the right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data are fundamental rights laid down in the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union but so is also the right to freedom of expression to which the right to be forgotten is often opposed. We are therefore faced with not just a limitation of a fundamental right because of societal imperatives but with a need to strike a balance between two existing fundamental rights, which in a way is more complicated than "simply" a limitation of a fundamental right because of societal imperatives.
Your e-mail adress will not be revealed on this website
Emilie Sirvent-Hien
Digital Trust & Identity Lab
1 
With the development of Social networks, the contents incorporate more and more personal data that accumulates over time when people communicate photos or express their opinions. The situations motivating a person to wish for the erasure of their data from the public sphere are many and easy imaginable, such as for instance a young person who doesn't realize the impact of such an exposure of their life on social networks.
Your e-mail adress will not be revealed on this website
Thank you Sylvain for your relevant comment! Yes personal cloud could be part of the solution to save your digital life and control it at the same time. Challenge will be the confidence of such services delegates to a third party and the risk to centralize it (see recent problems with icloud. ) In addition the main feature that is running out is easy sharing. With your photos it is cool to backup them but you also want to share them and that's why services like facebook or instagram are so popular. However I don't like your expression "numeric brain memory", I am thinking of Google research and the dream to replace human brain by machines? Are we ready to leave our humanity to machines? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2344398/Google-futurist-claims-uploading-entire-MINDS-computers-2045-bodies-replaced-machines-90-years.html
Hi Emily, thanks for your intervention. I agree that most of people and specially young one may not realize what impact that a publication of an opinion or a media file could have later on you in your "real life". Nowadays with the arriving of cloud services, people does not feel that they control their own datas. The "cloud" itself is not well a known process and may be misunderstood by people who are just consummers not concerned by I.T. People may regret their actions at a time and should have the right to be forgotten. When you publish a picture on a social network, it is very often archived on their servers and it is very hard to remove it. One alternative process would be for people to have their own private cloud or numeric space that would play the role of their "numeric brain memory". So for using social networks, those last would ask you to grant access to the picture you want to publish for the time you decided. Moreover it would give a sense for people to use "cloud" and have the feeling to control their move on Internet. Regards
Annie Blandin
Digital Trust & Identity Lab
2 
The debate concerning the right to erasure brings to light the fact that the duration of retention of data varies greatly even when collected for one specific purpose, just like the basis for the determination of the retention period (decision of the controller of the personal data, recommendations, legal limitations...). Some seem to even distance themselves from the very idea of a limited retention period, since it entails a risk of "collective amnesia" in our society in the case of an implementation of the right to erasure.
Your e-mail adress will not be revealed on this website
Guillaume Piolle
Digital Trust & Identity Lab
1 
The right to be forgotten is just an aspect of the right to privacy, which entails the control of individuals over the data relating to them. Ensuring that users have means to decide when an information that they chose to disclose about them should cease to be accessible, can be seen as a component of Privacy by Design. Its implementation in open and distributed environments leads to tricky technical issues, which are often unaddressed since data persistency and availability are usually considered desirable features in these applications. In this context, simply making a connection between the emerging legal notions and the existing or envisioned computing techniques is a challenge.
Your e-mail adress will not be revealed on this website
I think the question should also take into account the data inferred from our personal data, whatever those data concerned us or are related to other domains; who has the right to posses them them and to control them? and to which extent? do we have a word to say on any data created from our personal data? are we responsible legally or even morally of the way those inferred data are used? to whom really the paternity of these inferred data belongs to? The second question concern the removal of data; even if data are removed logically, there will be always a possibility to restore them from the hard disk, the only way to remove the data is by the destruction of the physical device or by t completely overwriting each sector with random data before the format or the removing. it is for the former case too much complex, expensive and even impossible since hard disks contains heterogeneous data of different entities. For the latter, it poses another issue, by which data should the removed data be replaced or modified? is it legal? and how to handle it?
We completly agree with you about a more ethical world with better control from their personal data by people. Yes Law are existing today and are evolving with "european regulatory project " for example, but it is not so simple to apply them for technical reasons first and specially for companies that have existing IT or the cost necessary to build new architecture designed for privacy. That's why there is still a lot of work to offer law-compliant technical solution and we are working on it at b<>com!
As also a professional of privacy, I first want to say that there is some laws in some countries which are guarant of it ! So, to begin by the first step, we have to fight to make them respected ! Complain, class action or incomes for everybody coming from all the companies in the world who use our personal data as business model all over the world, are different ways to manage it... Digital economy is powerful and it is an incomes creative process but it has to be ethical, fairtrade and to give back what it takes from every person to grow with people and not against them. We have to know if we want digital as a new economic system (which is already is) or just as tools in the old one (which is already dead) and to think how to take our personal place into the data system more as human (more citizen than consumer).
React
Is the “right to be forgotten” a danger to innovation or a new opportunity for social and technological innovation? In all what you read above, what information was the most surprising?
The final word is yours!
Post your comment.
(As a contributor, you will be the first to receive results' final report.)
Files must be less than 16 MB.
Allowed file types: txt doc docx xlsx xls pdf ppt pptx jpg gif png.
Your e-mail adress will not be revealed on this website
I would like to thank you for your contribution to the debate. It is important to have representation of opinions concerning all dimensions of this problem. I would, however, like to complement the image you have presented with some additional information. My first point concerns the relations between the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and the right to privacy. You invoke the idea that a right to be forgotten would pose a threat to the freedom of speech and that by advocating for a right to be forgotten, one is in effect contradicting the idea of a fully exercisable freedom of speech. I do not agree with you and let me point out why. The right to be forgotten is often seen as a pendant to the fundamental right to privacy and without the right to privacy (and protection in general to your person) there cannot be a satisfying level of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and the right to privacy are not mutually exclusive. Without protection allowing for a safe space to develop and organise ones opinions and thoughts, freedom of speech would in practice be limited. The absence of protection would entail what is called “a chilling effect” on free speech. Fundamental liberties and protections are essential for ensuring a democratic society in which freedom of speech can flourish. The right to be forgotten (in some form) is consequently becoming an even more important part of the fundamental right to privacy since it is in a way becoming a necessity for the exercising of freedom of speech in our modern society. For my second point I’d like to give you my answer to the final question in your comment. You are correct to say that data protection rights do exist in France since 1978 (with the adoption of the French law “informatique et libertés”). However to attribute the general public’s interest in data protection to it being “in” is portraying a simplistic view of the situation. The following complementary question should then at least be asked: why is it in? The response is that data protection is becoming a subject of ever increasing importance with and because of the development of the internet and the development of what is often referred to as “new technologies”. In 1978 the modern internet as we know it was still in its cradle. Even in 1995, the year of the adoption of the European data protection directive, it was not possible to predict the enormous impact that the internet would have on our daily lives. Today we exchange information on the internet at an ever increasing rate and by using simple everyday services like purchasing something online, booking a flight or joining a social network site, we are obliged or encouraged to provide personal data online. Data which because of modern computer technologies can be stored organized and analysed to be used for different purposes such as targeted advertising or purchase recommendations. So you see, it’s not so much that data protection is “in” as it is that it is becoming an increasing concern of the general public, especially over the past few years. People may be afraid that their personal life is going to be increasingly on display on the internet, they may become hesitant about participating in online services and most importantly they may become hesitant about expressing their opinions and thoughts online because they don’t know where that information may end up or for how long. In other words we would see the chilling effect on the freedom of speech that you so highly (and rightly so) value.
Je pense aller à l'encontre du débat mais allé je me lance. Non le droit à l'oubli n'est pas une bonne chose. Internet se construit grâce à une somme de données (on va être in on va dire Data hein). Sans cette accumulation de données et donc d'échange d'information, internet n'est rien. Le risque de vouloir supprimer des données sur soi? Tout simplement avoir l'effet inverse : effet barbara straisant. Cyroul résume très bien les motivations de certains politiques et mauvais du web à s'acharner dans une politique de ce sens. Internet n'est pas le monde réel et ne le sera jamais. Vous êtes demandeur d'une liberté et d'un ton de parole, mais en appuyant des démarches telles que celles-ci, vous allez à l'encontre de votre idée. Vous politisez internet. Il ne reste plus que quelques espaces digne de l'utopie d'internet. Bien sûr, ce dark web est tenu par des truands et autres pédophiles. Mais c'est encore le seul espace libertaire qu'il reste. Allez dernière petite question : vous vous enflammez sur vos données digitales, mais lequel d'entre vous à déjà demandé à son supermarché, à son fournisseur d'accès internet, à son entreprise de téléphonie mobile, un droit de regard et de retrait sur ses données personnelles? Les gars ça fait depuis 1978 que cela est possible et personne ne le fait, alors pourquoi s'exciter maintenant avec internet? Tout ça parce -que c'est "in" que quelques mauvais journalistes et pseudo expert d'internet vous le disent... Essayer de prendre du recul et de ne pas foncer tête baissé.
Les débats posés par le droit à l'oubli à la sauce Google sont symptomatiques. Google ne supprime aucune données d'Internet mais seulement de ses résultats de recherche. Les mastodontes du web sont devenus Internet et des entreprises commerciales privées ont un pouvoir et une influence gigantesque. Mais c'est un pouvoir qu'elles ont crée elles-mêmes en développant des services devenus indispensable. Il faut maintenant parvenir à faire prendre conscience à chacun que la monnaie d'échange du futur n'est pas l'euro ou le bitcoin mais les données personnelles que l'on consent à abandonner à ces sociétés. Le tout est de le faire consciemment, en sachant ce que cela implique, car droit à l'oubli ou pas, brouiller ses traces numériques est-il réellement possible ?
L'actualité du droit à l'oubli est riche, voilà quelques actualités pour ceux qui n'auraient pas eu le temps de tout suivre! - Suite aux premières réunions du conseil Google d'experts sur le droit à l'oubli et aux demandes répétées, Google a rendu un premier rapport de transparence sur les demandes reçues et la page est mise à jour régulièrement: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/?hl=fr, il en ressort que facebook est le premier site concerné par les URL supprimées - Pendant ce temps la PME Reputation VIP a mis a disposition une plateforme forget.me pour gérer les demandes vers plusieurs moteurs de recherche à la fois (Google et bing) elle a ainsi pu traiter plus de 10 000URL envoyées à Google et nous propose ses résultats, la presse est finalement moins concernée que prévue http://www.reputationvip.com/fr/blog/infographie-impact-du-droit-a-loubli-sur-la-presse - la Commission européenne publie un document : mythes et réalité sur le droit à l'oubli qui démonte pas mal des reproches courant au droit à l'oubli http://ec.europa.eu/justice/dataprotection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbusting_en.pdf-sur-la-presse Je terminerai par 2 études intéressantes sur les français et les données personnelles: - Havas Media Group a mené une étude sur la perception des Français quant à l'exploitation de leurs données personnelles par les entreprises. Cinq profils types de Français ont pu être définis, http://www.cio-online.com/actualites/lire-la-data%C2%A0-cette-richesse-qui-divise-les-francais-7096.html Êtes-vous data parano, data fataliste, data native, data stratège ou data détendu? - Et enfin l'étude annuelle BVA/syntec numérique http://www.bva.fr/data/sondage/sondage_fiche/1612/fichier_barometre_de_linnovation_-_octobre_2014_-_presentation_-_15_octobrebfc9e.pdf 54% des français se sentent mal informé des risques encourus en matière de vie privée sur internet 57% sont favorables à ce que l’état contrôle plus fortement les contenus diffusés sur internet 70% à juger un acteur tiers comme la CNIL plus efficace pour assurer la protection des données personnelles que les pouvoirs publics ou les sociétés privées Bref la prise de conscience sur la protection des données personnelles a commencé mais il reste encore du chemin à parcourir pour que chaque citoyen contrôle sa vie numérique! N'hésitez pas à réagir!
A mon sens nous devrions avoir le dernier mot quand à l'utilisation ou au retrait de nos données personnelles. Ceci devrait passer par des réglementations et par l'incitation à adopter des mécanismes de décentratlisation des données, comme le stockage de nos données personnelles sur nos PC ou serveur personnel par exemple. Quelques personnes mettent en opposition la liberté d'expression et d'information. Pour la liberté d'expression nous y sommes une personne peut être libre de diffuser ses informations peronnelles ou non. Pour la liberté d'information je pense qu'avant de demander ce que fait son voisin il pourrait être interessant de connaitre le contenu de ce que nous consommons au quotidien, que ce soit alimentaire, ménager ou technologique. Il y a également le problème de la mise en vente de ces données personnelles par certaines sociétés. Si nous nous plaçons dans la logique de la mise en vente d'un produit, il faudrait alors accorder une rétribution au "producteur" : nous. Avant cela il me semble que légalement nous devrions avoir toute les informations de manière clair et pouvoir nous rétracter à tout moment.
The most notable thing about the debate on the right to be forgotten right now is that it tends to miss the point - though it looks like it's about freedom of expression, the bigger impact is on the business models of Google and others. There are far bigger threats to freedom of expression out there - from the overenthusiastic enforcement of copyright to the kind of 'porn' filters being pushed by the UK government and others - which don't get nearly as much attention as the right to be forgotten. Why? As much as anything because Google shapes the debate, and has convinced people to worry about it. In its current form, if Google does the enforcement right, rather than exaggerating it for effect, the threat to freedom of expression is minimal. It should work only on old, irrelevant information, and only deletes links using particular search terms. Anyone even slightly creative can find their way back to the source data - which is not, itself, deleted. It provides 'obscurity', not deletion. There are risks, of course, but as I said at the start, far smaller risks than those provided by other problems, problems which seem to be paid much less attention.
Le droit au non référencement − ou au déréférencement § par les moteurs de recherche doit devenir une obligation absolue, de la même manière qu'il est possible pour un particulier de figurer sur la "liste rouge" des télécoms. Quant à ceux qui hurlent à la censure et à l'empiètement sur la liberté d'expression, ils offrent un spectacle lamentable tant leur puérilité fait peine à voir. Les moteurs de recherche ne sont rien d'autre que de viles agences publicitaires mal déguisées.
Longtemps, les problématiques d’e-réputation, données personnelles numériques et droit à l’oubli sont restées des notions confuses dans l’esprit du grand public. Cà et là, des législateurs et des instances de régulation comme la CNIL en France ont certes tenté d’encadrer et d’éclairer ce sujet virtuel, complexe mais aux impacts très concrets et parfois désastreux sur la vie des individus. Face à cette question cruciale, les géants du Web comme Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon soufflent le chaud et le froid, jurant qu’ils sont les premiers à protéger les données personnelles de leurs utilisateurs sans toujours passer à l’acte de façon totalement explicite. Depuis le 13 mai 2014, la Cour européenne de justice a jeté un sacré pavé dans la mare. Epilogue d’une longue procédure judiciaire d’un citoyen espagnol qui réclamait à Google l’effacement d’anciens contenus préjudiciables à sa réputation, l’instance européenne permet désormais à des internautes de déposer des requêtes auprès des moteurs de recherche comme Google et Bing pour procéder à l’effacement de données personnelles jugées diffamatoires et/ou gênantes. Depuis, le succès ne se dément pas. Au dernier pointage de Google, ce dernier annonçait avoir reçu plus de 70 000 requêtes avec comme pays formant le trio de tête : la France (17 500 demandes), l’Allemagne (16 000) et le Royaume-Uni (12 500 demandes). Même si les GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) et consorts se font encore tirer l’oreille pour collaborer ouvertement à l’instauration de règles et de procédures plus soucieuses du respect de la vie privée et de l’usage des données, le débat est désormais ouvert et l’opinion publique de plus en plus avertie sur cette épineuse question. Laquelle n’a d’ailleurs pas fini de faire couler de l’encre à l’heure où les objets connectés s’invitent à leur tour dans notre vie. Notamment les montres connectées qui sont capables par exemple de mesurer et de transmettre nos paramètres physiologiques à des services en ligne. Lire la suite : http://www.leblogducommunicant2-0.com/humeur/droit-a-loubli-venez-debattre-en-ligne-avec-la-plateforme-collaborative-perience/
Google entame une tournée européenne de réunions sur le droit à l'oubli Google entame une tournée européenne de réunions publiques sur le droit à l'oubli, le retrait de liens demandé par les internautes prescrit par la Cour européenne de justice. Le moteur de recherche, submergé par quelque 1 000 demandes de retrait par jour en Europe, indique vouloir trouver par ces discussions un équilibre «entre le droit des personnes à l'oubli et le droit à l'information du public», selon une présentation sur un site internet spécialement conçu. La tournée de consultation de Google passera par Madrid le 9 septembre, Rome le 10, Paris le 25, Varsovie le 30, Berlin le 14 octobre et Londres le 16. La Cnil a refusé d'y participer, qualifiant cette tournée de «communication».
  • innovation
  • future
  • better life
  • great ideas
  • better experiences
comes
with
bcom
top