1. Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (Euro. Ct. of Justice May 13, 2014).
2. Clark v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., No. 3:12–0675, 2014 WL 1934028 (M.D. Tenn. May 13, 2014).
3. Lateef Mungin, Bullied Canadian Teen Leaves Behind Chilling YouTube Video, CNN (Oct. 12, 2012), http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/world/americas/canada-teen-bullying/.
4. Amanda Todd, My Story: Struggling, Bullying, Suicide, Self Harm, YOUTUBE (2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej7afkypUsc.
5. Id.
6. Max Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Limited, [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_08mosleyvnewsgroup.pdf.
7. Josh Halliday, Max Mosley Sues Google in France and Germany over “Orgy” Search Results, GUARDIAN (Feb. 25, 2011), http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/25/max-mosley-google-france-germany.
8. Google Launches Challenges to Max Mosley’s Privacy Bid, BBC NEWS (Jan. 14, 2015), http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30816523.
9. Editorial Board, Wrong Responses to Charlie Hebdo, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 15, 2015).
10. Neil Spencer, How Much Data Is Created Every Minute?, VISUAL NEWS (June 9, 2012), http://www.visualnews.com/2012/06/19/how-much-data-created-every-minute/?view=infographic (sources include http://news.investors.com/, http://royal.pingdom.com, http://blog.grovo.com, http://blog.hubspot.com, http://simplyzesty.com, http://pcworld.com, http://bitztechmagazine.com, http://digby.com); World Internet Users Statistics Usage and World Population Stats, INTERNET WORLD STATS, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed June 23, 2015).
11. Reputation.com, The Real-World Effect of Online Reputation Management, http://www.reputation.com/reputationwatch/articles/the-real-world-effects-of-online-reputation-management (accessed June 28, 2015); Paulina Firozi, Law School Admissions Use Facebook, Google to Screen Applicants, Study Finds, DAILY NW. (Oct. 30, 2011), http://dailynorthwestern.com/2011/10/30/blogs/oncampus/law-school-admissions-use-facebook-google-to-screen-applicants-study-finds.
12. Jeffrey Rosen, The Web Means the End of Forgetting, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE (July 21, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?pagewanted=all.
13. These are so common that “Top 10” lists are regularly assembled. See Shawn Paul Wood, Top 10 Social Media Fails of 2013, MEDIABISTRO (Dec. 16, 2013), http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/pr-newsers-top-10-social-media-fails-of-2013_b80443; Natalie Umansky, 10 Outrageous Tweets That Got People Fired, ODDEE (Feb. 21, 2014), http://www.oddee.com/item_98873.aspx; Christina Warren, 10 People Who Lost Jobs over Social Media Mistakes, MASHABLE (June 16, 2011), http://mashable.com/2011/06/16/weinergate-social-media-job-loss/; Dan Fastenberg, Facebook Firings: Top 10 Cases and the NLRB’s New Guidelines, AOL JOBS (Sept. 2, 2011), http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/09/02/facebook-firings-top-ten-cases-and-the-nlrbs-new-guidelines/.
14. Zosia Bielski, If a Teacher’s Decades-Old Erotic Films Can Resurface Online, What Rights Should We Have to Digital Privacy?, GLOBE AND MAIL (Oct. 22, 2014), http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/if-a-teachers-decades-old-erotic-films-can-resurface-online-what-rights-should-we-have-to-digital-privacy/article21218588/.
15. Id.
16. Laura M. Holson, The New Court of Shame Is Online, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 23, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/fashion/26shaming.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0.
17. Tracie Egan Morrissey, Racist Teens Forced to Answer for Tweets about the “N*****” President, JEZEBEL (Nov. 9, 2012), http://jezebel.com/5958993/racist-teens-forced-to-answer-for-tweets-about-the-nigger-president.
18. Cross Tab, Online Reputation in a Connected World (Jan. 2010), http://www.job-hunt.org/guides/DPD_Online-Reputation-Research_overview.pdf (accessed Aug. 1, 2015) (75 percent of human resource departments are expected to research candidates online; 89 percent of hiring managers and recruiters review candidates’ professional online data; 86 percent of employers believe a positive online reputation influences their hiring decisions); Natasha Singer, They Loved Your G.P.A. Then They Saw Your Tweets, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 9, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/business/they-loved-your-gpa-then-they-saw-your-tweets.html?_r=0; Paulina Firozi, Law School Admissions Use Facebook, Google to Screen Applicants, Study Finds, DAILY NW. (Oct. 30, 2011), http://dailynorthwestern.com/2011/10/30/blogs/oncampus/law-school-admissions-use-facebook-google-to-screen-applicants-study-finds.
19. Match.com Presents Singles in America 2012, UP TO DATE (blog), Match.com, http://blog.match.com/SIA/ (accessed June 23, 2015).
20. Alex Mooris, Hunter Moore: The Most Hated Man on the Internet, ROLLING STONE (Oct. 11, 2012), http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-most-hated-man-on-the-Internet-20121113.
21. Cyberbullying-Linked Suicides Rising, Study Says, CBC NEWS (Oct. 20, 2012), http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/10/19/cyberbullying-suicide-study.html.
22. Bullying Statistics, Bullying and Suicide, http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html (accessed June 23, 2015).
23. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 272 (2009).
24. Google, Company Overview (Mar. 1, 2012), http://www.google.com/about/company/.
25. ELI PARISER, THE FILTER BUBBLE 1–3 (2011).
26. Mark Frauenfelder details the exchange between John Battelle and contacts at Google in his book RULE THE WEB: HOW TO DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET—BETTER, FASTER, EASIER 361–362 (2007). See also JOHN BATTELLE, THE SEARCH: HOW GOOGLE AND ITS RIVALS REWROTE THE RULES OF BUSINESS AND TRANSFORMED OUR CULTURE (2006).
27. Michael Zimmer, The Externalities of Search 2.0: The Emerging Privacy Threats When the Drive for the Perfect Search Engine Meets Web 2.0, 13:3 FIRST MONDAY (Mar. 2008), http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944.
28. Google, Privacy Policy (Mar. 1, 2012), http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/.
29. Julia Angwin, The Web’s New Gold Mine: Your Secrets, WALL ST. J. (July 30, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html.
30. Id.
31. Woody Leonhard, “Zombie Cookies” Won’t Die: Microsoft Admits Use, HTML 5 Looms as New Vector, INFOWORLD (Aug. 22, 2011), http://www.infoworld.com/t/Internet-privacy/zombie-cookies-wont-die-microsoft-admits-use-and-html5-looms-new-vector-170511.
32. Ciaran O’Kane, BlueKai Explain Their Data Exchange Platform and Hint at European Move, EXCHANGEWIRE (blog) (Aug. 10, 2009), http://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2009/08/10/bluekai-explain-their-data-exchange-platform-and-hint-at-european-move/.
33. JULIAN BARNES, FLAUBERT’S PARROT 38 (1984).
34. Jim Gray and Catharine van Ingen, Empirical Measurements of Disk Failure Rates and Error Rates, MICROSOFT RESEARCH TECHNICAL REPORT MSR-TR-2005–166 (Dec. 2005).
35. Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Lawrence Lessig, Perma: Scoping and Addressing the Problem of Link and Reference Rot in Legal Citations, 14:2 LEGAL INFO. MANAGEMENT 88 (2014).
36. Giorgio Pino, The Right to Personal Identity in Italian Private Law: Constitutional Interpretation and Judge-Made Rights, in THE HARMONIZATION OF PRIVATE LAW IN EUROPE 225, 237 (Mark Van Hoecke and François Ost eds., 2000).
37. DP Directive 95/46.
38. European Commission, Data Protection Reform—Frequently Asked Questions, press release, MEMO/10/542 (Nov. 4, 2010), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10–542_en.htm?locale=fr.
39. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM(2012) 11 final (Jan. 25, 2012) (DP Regulation), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf.
40. European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Report on Draft European Parliament Legislative Resolution, A7–0402/001–207 (Mar. 6, 2014) (DP Regulation, LIBE edits), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+AMD+A7–2013–0402+001–207+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
41. Edmond Cahn, The Firstness of the First Amendment, 65 YALE L.J. 464 (1956).
42. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 2 (2011).
43. Id. at 126.
44. Id. at 113.
45. Jeffrey Rosen, Free Speech, Privacy, and the Web That Never Forgets, 9 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 345 (2011).
46. Julie Juola Exline, Everett L. Worthington Jr., Peter Hill, and Michael E. McCullough, Forgiveness and Justice: A Research Agenda for Social and Personality Psychology, 7 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. REV. 337 (2003).
47. See generally Robert D. Enright, Suzanne Freedman, and Julio Rique, The Psychology of Interpersonal Forgiveness, in EXPLORING FORGIVENESS 46 (Robert D. Enright and Joanna North eds., 1998). Whether forgiveness requires positive feelings toward an offender or whether the absence of negative feelings alone is sufficient is a definitional debate had by social psychologists. Id. The authors consider the absence of negative feelings the most important aspect of a definition of forgiveness related to this topic. Id. at 50.
48. ROBERT JEFFRESS, WHEN FORGIVENESS DOESN’T MAKE SENSE 221 (2001) (32 percent found the statement very accurate, and 34 percent found it somewhat accurate).
49. Id. at 218. When asked about the accuracy of the statement “If you really forgive someone, you would want the person to be released from the consequences of their actions,” 28 percent answered that the statement was very accurate, and 32 percent answered that is was somewhat accurate.
50. Id. at 220. When asked about the accuracy of the statement “If you genuinely forgive someone, you should rebuild your relationship with that person,” 35 percent found it very accurate, and 38 percent found it somewhat accurate.
51. Julie Juola Exline, Everett L. Worthington Jr., Peter Hill, and Michael E. McCullough, Forgiveness and Justice: A Research Agenda for Social and Personality Psychology, 7 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. REV. 337, 340 (2003).
52. Id.
53. Id. at 338.
54. MARK S. UMBREIT, THE HANDBOOK OF VICTIM OFFENDER MEDIATION: AN ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 183 (2002).
55. See generally Jonathan R. Cohen, Apology and Organizations: Exploring an Example from Medical Practice, 27 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1447 (2000).
56. See Brad R. C. Kelln and John H. Ellard, An Equity Theory Analysis of the Impact of Forgiveness and Retribution on Transgressor Compliance, 25 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 864, 871 (1999). For example, following an ostensible transgression, an experimenter reacted in one of four ways: forgiveness only; forgiveness and retribution; retribution only; or neither forgiveness nor retribution. Id. at 865. Those transgressors who were forgiven without any form of retribution complied with experimenters’ requests more than any other group did. Id. at 869.
57. Frederick Luskin, The Stanford Forgiveness Projects, in FORGIVENESS: A SAMPLING OF RESEARCH RESULTS 14, 15 (American Psychological Association, 2006), http://www.apa.org/international/resources/publications/forgiveness.pdf.
58. Mayo Clinic, Forgiveness: Letting Go of Grudges and Bitterness (Nov. 11, 2014), http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692.
59. Loren Toussaint and Jon R. Webb, Theoretical and Empirical Connections between Forgiveness, Mental Health, and Well-Being, in HANDBOOK OF FORGIVENESS 349 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 2005).
60. Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet, Traumatic Intrusive Imagery as an Emotional Memory Phenomenon: A Review of Research and Explanatory Information Processing Theories, 17 CLIN. PSYCHOL. REV. 509 (1997).
61. See generally Roy F. Baumeister, Julie Juola Exline, and Kristin L. Sommer, The Victim Role, Grudge Theory, and Two Dimensions of Forgiveness, in DIMENSIONS OF FORGIVENESS: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH & THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 79 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 1998).
62. Id. at 98.
63. Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L. Vander Laan, Granting Forgiveness or Harboring Grudges: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health, 12 PSYCHOL. SCI. 117, 118 (2001); see also Everett L. Worthington Jr., Empirical Research in Forgiveness: Looking Backward, Looking Forward, in DIMENSIONS OF FORGIVENESS: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 321 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 1998).
64. Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L. Vander Laan, Granting Forgiveness or Harboring Grudges: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health, 12 PSYCHOL. SCI. 117 (2001).
65. Id. at 120.
66. Id. at 121 (measured by corrugator electromyograms).
67. Id. at 122.
68. Caryl E. Rusbult, Peggy A. Hannon, Sevaun L. Stocker, and Eli J. Finkel, Forgiveness and Relational Repair, in HANDBOOK OF FORGIVENESS 185, 194 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 2005).
69. Id.
70. Frank D. Fincham, Julie H. Hall, and Steven R. H. Beach, Til Lack of Forgiveness Doth Us Part: Forgiveness in Marriage, in HANDBOOK OF FORGIVENESS 207 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed. 2005).
71. Robert Enright, Forgiveness Education with Children in Areas of Violence and Poverty, in FORGIVENESS: A SAMPLING OF RESEARCH RESULTS 11, 12 (American Psychological Association, 2006), http://www.apa.org/international/resources/forgiveness.pdf.
72. Cynthia L. Battle and Ivan W. Miller, Families and Forgiveness, in HANDBOOK OF FORGIVENESS 233, 234 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 2005).
73. Frank D. Fincham, Steven R. H. Beach, and Joanne Davila, Forgiveness and Conflict Resolution in Marriage, 18 J. FAM. PSYCHOL. 72 (2004).
74. See, e.g., Eileen R. Borris, Forgiveness and the Healing of Nations, in PARALLEL EVENT OF THE 55TH COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, UNIVERSAL PEACE FEDERATION (2011), http://www.upf.org/education/speeches/3464-eileen-r-borris-forgiveness-and-the-healing-of-nations (presentation at the Parallel Event of the 55th Commission on the Status of Women “Women and the World at a Turning Point,” Mission of Nigeria to the UN, New York, an example of the United Nations’ relationship with the Universal Peace Federation and their efforts and funding for fostering forgiveness).
75. Robert Enright, Jeanette Knutson, Anthony Holter, Casey Knutson, and Padraig Twomey, Forgiveness Education with Children in Areas of Violence and Poverty, in FORGIVENESS: A SAMPLING OF RESEARCH RESULTS 11, 13 (American Psychological Association, 2006), http://www.apa.org/international/resources/forgiveness.pdf.
76. Frederick Luskin, The Stanford Forgiveness Projects, in FORGIVENESS: A SAMPLING OF RESEARCH RESULTS 14, 15 (American Psychological Association, 2006), http://www.apa.org/international/resources/publications/forgiveness.pdf.
77. Michael J. A. Wohl and Nyla R. Branscombe, Forgiving the Ingroup or the Outgroup for Harm Doing, in FORGIVENESS: A SAMPLING OF RESEARCH RESULTS 23, 24 (American Psychological Association, 2006), http://www.apa.org/international/resources/forgiveness.pdf.
78. Ervin Staub and Laurie Anne Pearlman, Promoting Reconciliation and Forgiveness after Mass Violence: Rwanda and Other Settings, in FORGIVENESS: A SAMPLING OF RESEARCH RESULTS 31 (American Psychological Association, 2006), http://www.apa.org/international/resources/forgiveness.pdf.
79. Stephanos Bibas, Forgiveness in Criminal Procedure, 4 OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. 329, 334 (2007).
80. Id. at 334.
81. Id. at 335. “As twelve-step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous emphasize, admitting guilt is an essential step along the road to reform.”
82. Id.
83. Id. at 334–335.
84. See Paul A. Mauger, J. F. Perry, T. Freeman, D. C. Grove, A. G. McBride, and K. E. McKinney, The Measurement of Forgiveness: Preliminary Research, 11 J. PSYCHOL. CHRIST. 170 (1992).
85. Jeanne S. Zechmeister and Catherine Romero, Victim and Offender Accounts of Interpersonal Conflict: Autobiographical Narratives of Forgiveness and Unforgiveness, 82 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 675, 681 (2002).
86. O. Carter Snead, Memory and Punishment, 64 VAND. L. REV. 1195, 1233 (2011).
87. Id. at 1233–1234; see also AVISHAI MARGALIT, THE ETHICS OF MEMORY 205 (2002) (“as long as the offended one retains any scars from the injury, the forgiveness is not complete”).
88. Caryl E. Rusbult, Peggy A. Hannon, Sevaun L. Stocker, and Eli J. Finkel, Forgiveness and Relational Repair, in HANDBOOK OF FORGIVENESS 185, 195 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 2005).
89. O. Carter Snead, Memory and Punishment, 64 VAND. L. REV. 1195, 1234 (2011).
90. Kashmir Hill, How the Past Haunts Us in the Digital Age, FORBES (Oct. 4, 2011), http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/10/04/how-the-past-haunts-us-in-the-digital-age/.
91. Johan C. Karremans, Paul A. M. Van Lange, and Rob W. Holland, Forgiveness and Its Associations with Prosocial Thinking, Feeling, and Doing beyond the Relationship with the Offender, 31 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 1315 (2005).
92. See Marilyn McCord Adams, Forgiveness: A Christian Model, 8 FAITH & PHIL. 277 (1991); Margaret R. Holmgren, Forgiveness and the Intrinsic Value of Persons, 30 AM. PHIL. Q. 341 (1993); Herbert Morris, Murphy on Forgiveness, 7 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 15 (1988), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.1988.9991836; Joanna North, The “Ideal” of Forgiveness: A Philosopher’s Exploration, in EXPLORING FORGIVENESS 15 (Robert D. Enright and Joanna North eds., 1998); Joanna North, Wrongdoing and Forgiveness, 62 PHILOSOPHY 499 (1987).
93. See, e.g., PETER A. FRENCH, THE VIRTUES OF VENGEANCE (2001); Jeffrie G. Murphy, Two Cheers for Vindictiveness, 2 PUNISHM. & SOC’Y 131 (2000); Michael Moore, The Moral Worth of Retribution, in RESPONSIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND THE EMOTIONS 179 (Ferdinand Schoeman ed., 1987).
94. See Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness in Counseling: A Philosophical Perspective, in BEFORE FORGIVING: CAUTIONARY VIEWS OF FORGIVENESS IN PSYCHOTHERAPY 41 (Sharon Lamb and Jeffrie G. Murphy eds., 2002).
95. See generally Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness, Mercy, and the Retributive Emotions, 7:2 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 3 (1988).
96. Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness in Counseling: A Philosophical Perspective, in BEFORE FORGIVING: CAUTIONARY VIEWS OF FORGIVENESS IN PSYCHOTHERAPY 41 (Sharon Lamb and Jeffrie G. Murphy eds., 2002); Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness, Mercy, and the Retributive Emotions, 7:2 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 3 (1988).
97. Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness, Self-Respect, and the Value of Resentment, in HANDBOOK OF FORGIVENESS 33, 33 (Everett L. Worthington Jr. ed., 2005).
98. ABRAHAM L. NEWMAN, PROTECTORS OF PRIVACY 6 (2008). For a discussion of the difference between the “functional approach” in social sciences and comparative law, see Ralf Michaels, The Functional Method of Comparative Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW 339 (Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2006).
99. LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN, PRIVATE LIVES: FAMILIES, INDIVIDUALS, AND LAW 17 (2005).
100. Sheila Jasanoff, Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society, in STATES OF KNOWLEDGE 13, 14 (Sheila Jasanoff ed. 2004).
101. For a discussion of STS debates in the information and communication technologies contexts, see MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES: ESSAYS ON COMMUNICATION, MATERIALITY, AND SOCIETY (Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo J. Boczkowski, and Kirsten A. Foot eds., 2014). See also THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE SOCIOLOGY AND HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY (Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch, and Deborah G. Douglas eds., 2012); and STATES OF KNOWLEDGE (Sheila Jasanoff ed. 2004).
102. THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE SOCIOLOGY AND HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY (Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch, and Deborah G. Douglas eds., 2012); STATES OF KNOWLEDGE (Sheila Jasanoff ed. 2004).
103. James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151, 1160 (2004).
104. Irwin Altman, Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific?, 33 J. SOC. ISSUES 66 (1977).
105. James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151, 1163 (2004).
106. Id.
107. Id.
108. Id.
109. Id. at 1172.
110. Id. at 1171–1179.
111. Id. at 1180, citing EDWARD J. EBERLE, DIGNITY AND LIBERTY: CONSTITUTIONAL VISIONS IN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES 85 (2002) (quoting the Microcensus Case, 27 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court] July 16, 1969, 1(7) (F.R.G.)).
112. Id. at 1190–1193.
113. Id. at 1193.
114. By “legal culture,” I mean “the ideas, attitudes, and values that people hold with regard to the legal system.” LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN, GUARDING LIFE’S DARK SECRETS 5 (2007).
115. YOCHAI BENKLER, THE WEALTH OF NETWORKS: HOW SOCIAL PRODUCTION TRANSFORMS MARKETS AND FREEDOM (2007).
116. David R. Johnson and David Post, Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1367 (1996).
117. Bernie Hogan, Pseudonyms and the Rise of the Real-Name Web, in A COMPANION TO NEW MEDIA DYNAMICS 290 (John Hartley, Jean Burgess, and Alex Bruns eds., 2013); see also Danielle Keats Citron, Cyber Civil Rights, 89 B.U. L. REV. 61 (2009); Daegon Cho, Soodong Kim, and Alessandro Acquisti, Empirical Analysis and User Behaviors: The Impact of Real Name Policy, in PROC. OF 45TH HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCE (HICSS 2012).
118. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 109 (2009) (quoting Eric Schmidt, interviewed by Thomas Friedman at the Google Personal Democracy Forum 2007 event (Mar. 23, 2007), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3yjR7HNLU).
119. For a discussion of three structural conditions for human flourishing in network societies (access to knowledge, operational transparency, and semantic discontinuity), see JULIE COHEN, CONFIGURING THE NETWORKED SELF: LAW, CODE, AND THE PLAY OF EVERYDAY PRACTICE 223–266 (2012). For a discussion of cultural specificity in the reconstruction of rights in times of techno-scientific advancements, see SHEILA JASANOFF, DESIGNS OF NATURE (2005).
1. GLORIA GONZÁLEZ FUSTER, THE EMERGENCE OF PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE EU (2014).
2. COLIN J. BENNETT AND CHARLES RAAB, THE GOVERNANCE OF PRIVACY: POLICY INSTRUMENTS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE (2006).
3. Axel Springer AG v. Germany (2012) 55 EHRR 6 (ECtHR).
4. ABRAHAM NEWMAN, PROTECTORS OF PRIVACY 23–29 (2008).
5. Jeanne M. Hauch, Protecting Private Facts in France: The Warren & Brandeis Tort Is Alive and Well and Flourishing in Paris, 68 TUL. L. REV. 1219 (1994).
6. Neil M. Richards and Daniel J. Solove, Privacy’s Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEO. L.J. 123 (2007).
7. Id.
8. See Douglas v. Hello!, Ltd. [2001] Q.B. 967 (wherein Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones initially won injunctive relief as well as damages but on appeal were granted only damages). Lord Justice Sedley of the Court of Appeals explained the judicial circumstances: “Courts have done what they can, using such legal tools as were on hand, to stop the more outrageous invasions of individuals’ privacy; but they have felt unable to articulate their measures as a discrete principle of law. . . . Nevertheless, we have reached a point at which it may be said with confidence that the law recognizes and will appropriately protect a right to personal privacy.” Douglas v. Hello!, Ltd. [2001] Q.B. 967 at 997. See also Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspaper Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22 (supermodel Naomi Campbell sued publishers over photographs taken when she was leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting). After a series of appeals, the declaration that there was no free-standing right to privacy under English law was made, but the House of Lords (then called the Law Lords) had to recognize the private information and fit it within a breach of confidence claim, explaining, “The continuing use of the phrase ‘duty of confidence’ and the description of the information as ‘confidential’ is not altogether comfortable. Information about an individual’s private life would not, in ordinary usage, be called ‘confidential.’ The more natural description today is that such information is private. The essence of the tort is better encapsulated now as misuse of private information.” Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspaper Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22 at 14.
9. James E. Stanley, Max Mosley and the English Right to Privacy, 10 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 641 (2011).
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.; see also Raymond Wacks, Why There Will Never Be an English Common Law Privacy Tort, in NEW DIMENSIONS IN PRIVACY LAW: INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES 154 (Andrew T. Kenyon and Megan Richardson eds., 2010).
14. Michael Tugendhat, The Data Protection Act of 1998 and the Media, in THE YEARBOOK OF COPYRIGHT AND MEDIA LAW: VOLUME V: 2000 115, 120 (Eric M. Barendt, Alison Firth, Stephen Bate, Julia Palca, John Enser, and Thomas Gibbons eds., 2001).
15. HOUSE OF LORDS, EU DATA PROTECTION LAW: “RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN”?, EUROPEAN UNION COMMITTEE, 2ND REPORT OF SESSION 2014–15 (July 30, 2014), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/40/40.pdf.
16. Wolfgang Kilian, Germany, in GLOBAL PRIVACY PROTECTION: THE FIRST GENERATION 80 (James B. Rule and Graham Greenleaf eds., 2008).
17. Paul M. Schwartz and Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Prosser’s Privacy and the German Right of Personality: Are Four Privacy Torts Better than One Unitary Concept?, 98 CAL. L. REV. 1925 (2010).
18. BGHZ 13, 334 = 7 NJW 1404 (1954).
19. BVerfGE 34, 269 = 26 NJW 1221 (1973).
20. Id. at 281.
21. BVerfGE 65, 1 at para. 154 of 15 (1983).
22. Id.
23. Wolfgang Kilian, Germany, in GLOBAL PRIVACY PROTECTION: THE FIRST GENERATION 80, 80–81 (James B. Rule and Graham Greenleaf eds., 2008).
24. BVerfGE 1 BvR 653/96 (1999).
25. Id.
26. C. von Hannover v. Germany [2004] ECHR no. 59320/00 (June 24, 2004).
27. Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) 40660/08 [2012] ECHR 228 (Feb. 7, 2012).
28. John Schwartz, Two German Killers Demanding Anonymity Sue Wikipedia’s Parent, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 12, 2009).
29. Lawrence Siry and Sandra Schmitz, A Right to Be Forgotten? How Recent Developments in Germany May Affect the Internet Publishers in the US, 3:1 EUR. J. L. & TECH. (2012), http://ejlt.org/article/viewFile/141/222%3E.
30. Id. (citing BGH, Decision of 10 Nov. 2009—VI ZR 217/08 (rainbow.at); Decisions of 15 Dec. 2009—VI ZR 227/08 and 228/08 (Deutschlandradio); Decisions of 9 Feb. 2010—VI ZR 243/08 and 244/08 (Spiegel online); Decisions of 20 Apr. 2010—VI ZR 245/08 and 246/08 (morgenweb.de)).
31. Franz Werro, The Right to Inform v. the Right to Be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash, in LIABILITY IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM 285 (Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Christine Godt, Peter Rott, and Leslie Jane Smith eds., 2009).
32. Id.
33. Related ECtHR cases like Schwabe v. Austria, ECHR, 28/8/1992, and M.M. v. The United Kingdom, ECHR, 29/04/2013, are discussed in chapter 4.
34. AG v. W., BGE 122 III 449 (1996).
35. A. v. Journal de Genève et Gazette de Lausanne, 23 10/2003, 5C156/2003 (2003).
36. X. v. Société Suisse de Radio et de Télévision, BGE 109 II 353 (1983).
37. Jeanne M. Hauch, Protecting Private Facts in France: The Warren & Brandeis Tort Is Alive and Well and Flourishing in Paris, 68 TUL. L. REV. 1219, 1231 (1994).
38. Judgment of June 16, 1858, Trib. pr. inst. de la Seine, 1858 D.P. III 62 (Fr.) (affaire Rachel).
39. Jeanne M. Hauch, Protecting Private Facts in France: The Warren & Brandeis Tort Is Alive and Well and Flourishing in Paris, 68 TUL. L. REV. 1219, 1233–1235 (1994).
40. Id. at 1233.
41. James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty, YALE L.J. 1151 (2004) (citing Dumas c. Liébert, CA Paris, May 25, 1867, 13 A.P.I.A.L. 247 (1867)).
42. Id. at 1171–1179.
43. Dumas, 13 A.P.I.A.L. at 249–250.
44. Id. at 250.
45. Judgment of July 12, 1966, Cass. civ. 2e, 1967 D.S. Jur. 181 (Fr.).
46. Statute No. 70–643 of July 17, 1970, J.O., July 10, 1970, at 6751 (Fr.)
47. Loi 78–17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés (version consolidée au 27 août 2011) [Law 78–17 of January 6, 1978, on Information Technologies, Data Files, and Civil Liberties (consolidated version as of Aug. 27, 2011)], English version available on the CNIL website, at http://www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/documents/en/Act78–17VA.pdf.
48. MARIO VIOLA DE AZEVEDO CUNHA, MARKET INTEGRATION THROUGH DATA PROTECTION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES IN THE EU 89 (2013).
49. Court of First Instance Paris, Feb. 15, 2012, Diana Z. / Google.
50. Elizabeth Flock, Should We Have a Right to Be Forgotten Online?, WASH. POST (Apr. 20, 2011), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/should-we-have-a-right-to-be-forgotten-online/2011/04/20/AF2iOPCE_blog.html.
51. Loi no. 2004–801 du 6 août 2004 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l’égard des traîtments de données à carctère personnel physiques et modifiant la loi no. 78/17 du 6 janvier 1978.
52. BEUC (European Consumers’ Organisation), A Comprehensive Approach on Personal Data Protection in the European Union: European Commission’s Communication (Jan. 24, 2011), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/organisations/beuc_en.pdf.
53. Giorgio Pino, The Right to Personal Identity in Italian Private Law: Constitutional Interpretation and Judge-Made Rights, in THE HARMONIZATION OF PRIVATE LAW IN EUROPE 225 (Mark Van Hoecke and Francois Ost eds., 2000).
54. Id.
55. Pangrazi e Silvetti c. Comitato Referendum (in Giur it. 1975, I, 2, 514).
56. Giorgio Pino, The Right to Personal Identity in Italian Private Law: Constitutional Interpretation and Judge-Made Rights, in THE HARMONIZATION OF PRIVATE LAW IN EUROPE 225, 235–236 (Mark Van Hoecke and Francois Ost eds., 2000).
57. Corte di Cassazione, I. Civ., n. 5259 (Oct. 18, 1984).
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. Pere Simón Castellano, The Right to Be Forgotten under European Law: A Constitutional Debate, 16 LEX ELECTRONICA (2012) (citing Reti telematiche a garantire il c.d. “diritto all’oblio” (Nov. 10, 2004), http://www.garanteprivacy.it/garante/doc.jsp?ID=1116068).
61. Italian Data Protection Authority, Oblivion Rights, doc. Web n. 1336892 (Nov. 9, 2005).
62. Id.
63. Id.
64. Corte di Cassazione, III Civ., n. 5525 (Apr. 5, 2012).
65. Id.
66. Id.
67. Id.
68. Id.
69. AEPD Decision procedure no. TD/00463/2007; procedure no. TD/01335/2008; and procedure no. TD/00627/2009.
70. Suzanne Daley, On Its Own, Europe Backs Web Privacy Fights, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 9, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/world/europe/10spain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
71. Id.
72. Id.
73. Elizabeth Flock, Should We Have a Right to Be Forgotten Online?, WASH. POST (Aug. 20, 2011), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/should-we-have-a-right-to-be-forgotten-online/2011/04/20/AF2iOPCE_blog.html.
74. Claire Davenport, Spain Refers Google Privacy Complaints to EU’s Top Court, REUTERS (Mar. 2, 2012), http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-eu-google-idUSTRE8211DP20120302.
75. Id.
76. European Commission, European Commission Sets Out Strategy to Strengthen EU Data Protection Rules, press release, IP/10/1462 (Nov. 4, 2010).
77. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM(2012) 11 final (Jan. 25, 2012) (DP Regulation), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf.
78. Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (Euro. Ct. of Justice May 13, 2014).
79. Id. at para. 4 (citing Art. 2 of Directive 95/46).
80. Id. at para. 95.
81. Id. at para. 88.
82. Id. at para. 90.
83. Id. at para. 97.
84. Id. at para. 90.
85. Id. at para. 65.
86. Id. at paras. 36–37.
87. Jennifer Urban and Laura Quilter, Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? Takedown Notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 621 (2006).
88. The database only included seven counternotices, which is not an accurate representation of responses to the takedown notices, as these are automatically contributed to the Chilling Effect database.
89. DANIEL J. SOLOVE, THE FUTURE OF REPUTATION: GOSSIP, RUMOR, AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET 122 (2007).
90. Case C-131/12, Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, para. 78 (June 25, 2013).
91. Id. at para. 79.
92. Id. at para. 81.
93. Id. at para. 108.
94. At that point in 2010, the closest approximation was defined as “the right of individuals to have their data fully removed when they are no longer needed for the purposes for which they were collected or when he or she withdraws consent or when the storage period consented to has expired.” Comprehensive Approach on Personal Data Protection, COM (2010) 609, Brussels (Nov. 4, 2010).
95. Dave Lee, Google Removing BBC Link Was “Not a Good Judgement,” BBC NEWS (July 3, 2014), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28144406.
96. Google Sets Up “Right to Be Forgotten” Form after EU Ruling, BBC NEWS (May 30, 2014), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27631001.
97. For a complete overview of the European Commission’s work, see European Commission, Commission Proposes a Comprehensive Reform of the Data Protection Rules (Jan. 25, 2012), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm.
98. Viviane Reding, Speech at New Frontiers for Social Media Marketing Conference, EU Data Protection Reform and Social Media: Encouraging Citizens’ Trust and Creating New Opportunities (Nov. 29, 2011) (transcript available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11–827_en.htm).
99. DP Regulation, LIBE edits.
100. The Proposal (Recitals 47–48) also requires that data subjects are informed of their right to erasure and that modalities should be provided to exercise it.
101. See also Recital 54, which is almost identical.
102. Such laws should, however, “meet an objective of public interest, respect the essence of the right to the protection of personal data and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” (Art. 17(3)(d)).
103. Use, in these cases, should be restricted to processing “for purposes of proof, or with the data subject’s consent, or for the protection of the rights of another natural or legal person or for an objective of public interest” (Art. 17, paras. 4–5).
104. OECD Doc. (C 58 final) (Oct. 1, 1980).
105. Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (1981), http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/108.htm.
106. OECD Doc. (C 58 final) (Oct. 1, 1980).
107. WHITE HOUSE, NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR TRUSTED IDENTITIES IN CYBERSPACE, ENHANCING ONLINE CHOICE, EFFICIENCY, SECURITY, AND PRIVACY appendix A (2011), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf.
108. UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) (Dec. 16, 1966), implemented Mar. 23, 1976.
109. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 16 (23rd sess., 1988), COMPILATION OF GENERAL COMMENTS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY BODIES, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 21 (1994), n. 208, para.10 (emphasis added).
1. Cease-and-desist letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Oct. 27, 2009), available at http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/stopp.pdf.
2. Jennifer Granick, Convicted Murderer to Wikipedia: Shhh!, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Nov. 10, 2009), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/murderer-wikipedia-shhh.
3. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
4. Rex D. Glensy, The Right to Dignity, 43 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 65, 86 (2011).
5. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193, 207 (1890).
6. William Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383 (1960).
7. Paul M. Schwartz and Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Prosser’s Privacy and the German Right of Personality: Are Four Privacy Torts Better than One Unitary Concept?, 98 CAL. L. REV. 1925, 1942 (2010).
8. Frank Easterbrook, Approaches to Judicial Review, in POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTION: THE NATURE OF AND EXTENT OF INTERPRETATION 17, 29 (Judith A. Baer ed., 1990).
9. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
10. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967); Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
11. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (1971).
12. Wendy Seltzer, Free Speech Unmoored in Copyright’s Safe Harbor: Chilling Effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment, 24 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 171, 177 (2010).
13. Jennifer Urban and Laura Quilter, Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? Takedown Notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 621 (2006).
14. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. d (2012).
15. Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285, 292 (Cal. App. 1931).
16. Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Assoc., 483 P.2d 34 (Cal. 1971).
17. HAROLD L. NELSON AND DWIGHT L. TEETER JR., LAW OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS 199 (2d ed. 1973).
18. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
19. Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co., 626 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962 (1981).
20. Street v. National Broadcasting Co., 512 F. Supp. 398 (E.D. Tenn. 1977), aff’d, 645 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 102 S. Ct. 667 (1981).
21. Street v. National Broadcasting Co., 645 F. 2d 1227 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed, 102 S. Ct. 667 (1981).
22. Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corporation, 113 F.2d 806, 809 (2nd Cir. 1940).
23. Estill v. Hearst Publishing Co., 186 F.2d 1017, 1020 (7th Cir. 1951).
24. Perry v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 499 F.2d 797, 799 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 883 (1974).
25. Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997).
26. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).
27. Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989).
28. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 487 (1975).
29. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940).
30. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 388 (1967).
31. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 534 (2001).
32. Harvey Purtz v. Rajesh Srinivasan, No. 10CESC02211 (Fresno Co. Small Cl. Ct. Jan. 11, 2011), available at http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/cprodsnp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=10CESC02211&begin_date=&end_date= (text of the Statement of Decision, including the judge’s personal comments, can be found in the docket entry listed for Jan. 11, 2011).
33. Martin v. Hearst Corp., Case 13–3315, 5 (2nd Cir., Jan. 28, 2015).
34. Id. at 10.
35. G.D. v. Kenny, 15 A.3d 275, 302 (N.J. 2011).
36. Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007).
37. Priscilla Regan, The United States, in GLOBAL PRIVACY PROTECTION: THE FIRST GENERATION 50, 51 (James B. Rule and Graham Greenleaf eds., 2008).
38. Id. 50–78.
39. Id. at 78.
40. Jeffrey Rosen, The Delete Squad, NEW REPUBLIC (Apr. 29, 2013).
41. These workarounds are often performed by parents helping their children create social media accounts. danah boyd, Eszter Hargittai, Jason Schultz, and John Palfrey, Why Parents Help Their Children Lie to Facebook about Age: Unintended Consequences of the “Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act,” 16 FIRST MONDAY (2011), http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3850.
42. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 22580–22582.
43. Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, Oklahoma Cty., 430 U.S. 308 (1977).
44. Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979).
45. Hubbard v. Journal Publishing Co., 368 P.2d 147 (N.M. 1962).
46. See stopbullying.gov for organizations, policies, laws, and outreach.
47. Walter Olson, Facebook Opens Takedown Hotline for Public School Officials, CATO INSTITUTE (Oct. 3, 2013), http://www.cato.org/blog/facebook-opens-takedown-hotline-public-school-officials.
48. Albany County Local Law No. 11 of 2010, § 1.
49. People v. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1, 9 (N.Y. 2014).
50. Id. at 12–15.
51. Danielle Keats Citron and Mary Anne Franks, Criminalizing Revenge Porn, 49 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 345 (2014); see EndRevengePorn.org for up-to-date statistics and initiatives.
52. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14–9 (West 2010).
53. Star-Ledger Staff, Dharun Ravi Sentenced to Jail in Tyler Clementi Webcam Spying Case, NJ.COM (May 21, 2012), http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/dharun_ravi_sentenced_to_jail.html.
54. Antigone Books v. Horne, ACLU Compl. (filed Sept. 23, 2014), available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/az_nude_picture_complaint_0.pdf.
55. David Segal, Mugged by a Mug Shot Online, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 5, 2013).
56. Oregon HB 3467.
57. European Commission, Safer Internet Day 2009: Commission Starts Campaign against Cyber-Bullying, press release, MEMO/09/58 (Feb. 10, 2009).
58. Law Reform Commission, Ireland, Issues Paper on Cyber-Crime Affecting Personal Safety, Privacy and Reputation Including Cyber-Bullying, LRC IP 6–2014 (2014).
59. Ministry of Justice and the Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling MP, New Law to Tackle Revenge Porn, press release (Oct. 12, 2014).
60. Tribunal de Commerce de Paris, 28 Jan. 2014, X v. Google Inc.
61. LAWRENCE LESSIG, CODE: VERSION 2.0 124, 125 (2006).
62. Lauren B. Movius and Nathalie Krup, U.S. and EU Privacy Policy: Comparison of Regulatory Approaches, 3 INT’L J. COMM. 169, 171–172 (2009).
63. Reputation.com, Suppress Negative Content Online: ReputationDefender, https://www.reputation.com/reputationdefender (accessed June 28, 2015).
64. Reputation systems compute a reputation score for a set of objects on the basis of opinions expressed by other people on the objects. Kristiina Karvonen, Sanna Shibasaki, Sofia Nunes, Puneet Kaur, and Olli Immonen, Visual Nudges for Enhancing the Use and Produce of Reputation Information, in PROC. CEUR WORKSHOP (2010), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-612/paper1.pdf.
65. See, e.g., Reputation.com, A Bad Online Reputation Could Cost You the Election, http://www.reputation.com/reputationwatch/articles/a-bad-online-reputation-could-cost-you-the-election (accessed June 28, 2015).
66. See generally DAVID BRIN, THE TRANSPARENT SOCIETY: WILL TECHNOLOGY FORCE US TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PRIVACY AND FREEDOM? (1999).
67. For example, “In Japan, social networking accounts are almost always pseudonymous. People rarely use their real names, so if your real friend is someone who is not a fake friend, you share your pseudonym. That way, your real friends have access to the whole account, but employers and strangers never do, and you can always walk away from your pseudonym.” Jeffrey Rosen, Free Speech, Privacy, and the Web That Never Forgets, 9 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 345, 353–354 (2011) (quoting and citing Hiroko Tabuchi, Facebook Wins Relatively Few Friends in Japan, N.Y. TIMES B1 (Jan. 10, 2011), who finds that in a “survey of 2,130 Japanese mobile Web users . . . , 89 percent of respondents said they were reluctant to disclose their real names on the Web”).
68. Quoted in VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 154 (2009).
69. Quoted in Jessica Winter, The Advantages of Amnesia, BOSTON.COM (Sept. 23, 2007), http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/09/23/the_advantages_of_amnesia/?page=full.
70. Jeffrey Rosen, Free Speech, Privacy, and the Web That Never Forgets, 9 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 345, 354 (2011).
71. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 155 (2009).
72. Jeffrey H. Reiman, Driving to the Panopticon: A Philosophical Exploration of the Risks to Privacy Posed by the Highway Technology of the Future, 11 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 27, 36 (1995).
73. Ruth Gavison, Privacy and the Limits of Law, 89 YALE L.J. 421, 454 (1980).
74. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 155 (2009).
75. Id.
76. Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer, and Kathleen D. Vohs, Bad Is Stronger than Good, 5 REV. GEN. PSYCHOL. 323 (2001).
77. Hara Estroff Marano, Our Brain’s Negative Bias, PSYCHOLOGY TODAY (June 20, 2003), http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200306/our-brains-negative-bias.
78. Laura Brandimarte, Discounting the Past: Bad Weighs Heavier than Good (2010), unpublished manuscript, available at http://heinz.cmu.edu/research/384full.pdf (addressing how information related to past events and retrieved today is discounted and evaluated by the reader).
79. Although this research area is still producing unclear and conflicting findings, questions surrounding online self-censorship have increased dramatically. For an example of recent research on self-censorship, see Sauvik Das and Adam Kramer, Self-Censorship on Facebook, PROC. OF SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL AAAI CONFERENCE ON WEBLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (2013) (finding that 71 percent of Facebook users engage in self-censorship); Keith Hampton, Lee Rainie, Weixu Lu, Maria Dwyer, Inyoung Shin, and Kristen Purcell, Social Media and the “Spiral of Silence,” PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Aug. 26, 2014), http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/08/PI_Social-networks-and-debate_082614.pdf. (finding that users were twice as likely to join discussions surrounding the Snowden-NSA controversy if they perceived that their network agreed with their opinion and that while 86 percent of Americans were willing to discuss the controversy in person, only 42 percent were willing to do so on Facebook or Twitter).
80. Elisabeth Noelle Neumann, The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion, 24 J. COMMUN. 43 (1974).
81. Liam J. Bannon, Forgetting as a Feature, Not a Bug: The Duality of Memory and Implications for Ubiquitous Computing, 2 CODESIGN 3, 11 (2006).
82. Id.
83. Ann Cavoukian and Jeff Jonas, Privacy by Design in the Age of Big Data, PRIVACY BY DESIGN (2012), http://privacybydesign.ca/content/uploads/2012/06/pbd-big_data.pdf.
84. Gillian Tan, Douglas MacMillan, and Jack Marshall, News and Ads to Debut on Snapchat, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 19, 2014), http://online.wsj.com/articles/snapchat-discussing-new-content-service-with-advertisers-and-media-firms-1408486739.
85. Franziska Roesner, Brian T. Gill, and Tadayoshi Kohno, Sex, Lies, or Kittens? Investigating the Use of Snapchat’s Self-Destructing Messages, 8437 FINANCIAL CRYPTOGRAPHY AND DATA SECURITY 64 (2014).
86. Id.
87. Asimina Vasalou and Jeremy Pitt, Reinventing Forgiveness: A Formal Investigation of Moral Facilitation, in TRUST MANAGEMENT, THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, ITRUST 2005 146 (Peter Herrmann, Valérie Issarny, and Simon Shiu eds., 2005).
88. Id. at 147–149, 156.
89. Id. at 150, 151.
90. Id. at 151.
91. Id. at 151–153.
92. Id. at 154.
93. Stephen Marsh and Pamela Briggs, Examining Trust, Forgiveness and Regret as Computational Concepts, in COMPUTING WITH SOCIAL TRUST 9 (Jennifer Golbeck ed., 2009).
94. Id. at 31–37.
95. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 171–173 (2009).
1. ALAN F. WESTIN, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM 7 (1967).
2. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890).
3. JUDITH WAGNER DECEW, IN PURSUIT OF PRIVACY (1997).
4. Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (dissent).
5. Polly Sprenger, Sun on Privacy: “Get Over It,” WIRED (Jan. 26, 1999).
6. Alan F. Westin, Science, Privacy, and Freedom: Issues and Proposals for the 1970’s, 66 COLUMBIA L. REV. 1205, 1214 (1966).
7. Id.
8. danah boyd, Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life, in MACARTHUR FOUNDATION SERIES ON DIGITAL LEARNING—YOUTH, IDENTITY, AND DIGITAL MEDIA 119, 132 (David Buckingham ed., 2008).
9. George Doe, With Genetic Testing, I Gave My Parents the Gift of Divorce, VOX (Sept. 9, 2014), http://www.vox.com/2014/9/9/5975653/with-genetic-testing-i-gave-my-parents-the-gift-of-divorce-23andme.
10. Id.
11. Paul Ohm, Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization, 57 UCLA L. REV. 1701 (2010).
12. Ellen Nakashima, Feeling Betrayed, Facebook Users Force Site to Honor Their Privacy, WASH. POST (Nov. 30, 2007), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902503.html.
13. Alessandro Acquisti and Jens Grossklags, Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behavior, in ECONOMICS OF INFORMATION SECURITY 165, 174–175 (L. Jean Camp and Stephen Lewis eds., 2004).
14. Daniel J. Solove, Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1880 (2013).
15. Zoe Ruderman, The First Ever Live-Tweeted Breakup, COSMOPOLITAN (Nov. 9, 2011).
16. Charles Duhigg, How Companies Learn Your Secrets, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 16, 2012).
17. Patricia A. Norberg, The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors, 41 J. CONSUMER AFF. 100 (2007).
18. Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies, 4 ISJLP 543 (2008).
19. Helen Nissenbaum, A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online, 140 DAEDALUS 32 (2011), http://www.amacad.org/publications/daedalus/11_fall_nissenbaum.pdf.
20. Alessandro Acquisti and Jens Grossklags, Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behavior, in ECONOMICS OF INFORMATION SECURITY 165 (L. Jean Camp and Stephen Lewis eds., 2004).
21. Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort, 77 CALIF. L. REV. 957, 959 (1989).
22. PRISCILLA M. REGAN, LEGISLATING PRIVACY: TECHNOLOGY, SOCIAL VALUES, AND PUBLIC POLICY 23 (1995).
23. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890).
24. Ruth Gavison, Privacy and the Limits of Law, 89 YALE L.J. 421, 423 (1980).
25. ALAN F. WESTIN, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM 33–34 (1967).
26. Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, 87 TEX. L. REV. 387 (2008).
27. Charles Fried, Privacy, 77 YALE L.J. 475, 482 (1968).
28. DANIEL J. SOLOVE, UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY (2008).
29. Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy as Contextual Integrity, 79 WASH. L. REV. 119 (2004).
30. Id. at 129–157.
31. Noëmi Manders-Huits and Jeroen van den Hoven, Moral Identification in Identity Management Systems, in THE FUTURE OF IDENTITY IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 77, 86 (Simone Fischer-Hübner, Penny Duquenoy, Albin Zuccato, and Leonardo Martuc eds., 2008).
32. Bruce Cockburn, The Trouble with Normal, on THE TROUBLE WITH NORMAL (True North 1983).
33. JEFFREY ROSEN, THE UNWANTED GAZE: THE DESTRUCTION OF PRIVACY IN AMERICA 210 (2000).
34. J. David Velleman, The Genesis of Shame, 30 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 27, 37 (2001).
35. Paul Freund, Address to the American Law Institute, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 52ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE 42–43 (1975).
36. Stanley I. Benn, Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons, in PRIVACY, NOMOS XIII: YEARBOOK OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR POLITICAL AND LEGAL PHILOSOPHY 1, 24 (J. Ronald Pennock and John W. Chapman eds., 1971).
37. IRWIN ALTMAN, THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR: PRIVACY, PERSONAL SPACE, TERRITORY, AND CROWDING 50 (1975).
38. Julie E. Cohen, What Privacy Is For, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1904, 1906 (2013).
39. JULIE E. COHEN, CONFIGURING THE NETWORKED SELF: LAW, CODE, AND THE PLAY OF EVERYDAY PRACTICE 239 (2012).
40. Woodrow Hartzog and Frederic Stutzman, The Case for Online Obscurity, 101 CAL. L. REV. 1 (2013).
41. Paul Ohm, Good Enough Privacy, 2008 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 1 (2008).
42. Rolf H. Weber, The Right to Be Forgotten: More than a Pandora’s Box?, 2 JIPITEC 120, 121 (2011), http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-2–2-2011/3084/jipitec%202%20-%20a%20-%20weber.pdf.
43. For a discussion of the difference, see Antoinette Rouvroy and Yves Poullet, The Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Value of Self-Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy, in REINVENTING DATA PROTECTION? 45 (Serge Gutwirth, Yves Poullet, Paul de Hert, Cécile de Terwangne, and Sjaak Nouwt eds., 2009).
44. Bert-Jaap Koops, Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows: A Critical Analysis of the “Right to Be Forgotten” in Big Data Practice, 8:3 SCRIPTED 1 (2011).
45. Paul A. Bernal, A Right to Delete?, 2:2 EUR. J. L. & TECH. (2011), http://ejlt.org/article/view/75/144.
46. Jef Ausloos, The “Right to Be Forgotten”—Worth Remembering?, 28 COMPUTER L. & SEC. REV. 143 (2012).
47. Paul A. Bernal, A Right to Delete?, 2:2 EUR. J. L. & TECH. (2011), http://ejlt.org/article/view/75/144.
48. Jef Ausloos, The “Right to Be Forgotten”—Worth Remembering?, 28 COMPUTER L. & SEC. REV. 143, 143 (2012).
49. Napoleon Xanthoulis, Conceptualising a Right to Oblivion in the Digital World: A Human Rights–Based Approach, SSRN WORKING PAPER SERIES (2012), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2064503 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2064503.
50. Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade, Oblivion: The Right to Be Different . . . from Oneself—Reproposing the Right to Be Forgotten, 13 IDP 122, 131 (2012).
51. Napoleon Xanthoulis, Conceptualising a Right to Oblivion in the Digital World: A Human Rights-Based Approach, SSRN WORKING PAPER SERIES (2012), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2064503 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2064503 (citing James Griffin, First Steps in an Account of Human Rights, 9 EUR. J. PHIL. 306 (2001)).
52. Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade, Oblivion: The Right to Be Different . . . from Oneself—Reproposing the Right to Be Forgotten, 13 IDP 122, 125 (2012), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2064503 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2064503.
53. Id. at 126.
54. Quinton v. Peirce & Anor [2009] EWHC 912 (QB), para. 92.
55. Id. at para. 93.
56. Law Society, Hine Solicitors & Kevin McGrath v. Rick Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB), para. 96.
57. Id. at para. 100.
1. Jeffrey Rosen, The Web Means the End of Forgetting, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE (July 21, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?pagewanted=all.
2. Bill Barnes, Nothing but Net, SLATE (Feb. 28, 1997), http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/1997/02/nothing_but_net.html.
3. ROY ROSENZWEIG, CLIO WIRED: THE FUTURE OF THE PAST IN THE DIGITAL AGE 8 (2011).
4. JEFF ROTHENBERG, AVOIDING TECHNOLOGICAL QUICKSAND 2 (1998).
5. ROY ROSENZWEIG, CLIO WIRED: THE FUTURE OF THE PAST IN THE DIGITAL AGE 9 (2011).
6. Public Session: Panel Discussion, in TIME & BITS: MANAGING DIGITAL CONTINUITY 36, 47 (Margaret MacLean and Ben H. Davis eds., 1998).
7. Brewster Kahle, Preserving the Internet, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (July 27, 1998), http://web.archive.org/web/19980627072808/http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397kahle.html; Lisa Rein, Brewster Kahle on the Internet Archive and People’s Technology, O’REILLY P2P.COM (Jan. 22, 2004), http://openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2004/01/22/kahle.html; Internet Archive, Wayback Machine: Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php (accessed June 6, 2015).
8. Wallace Koehler, A Longitudinal Study of Web Pages Continued: A Consideration of Document Persistence, 9:2 INFO. RESEARCH paper 174 (2004), http://informationr.net/ir/9–2/paper174.html.
9. Carol Anne Germain, URLs: Uniform Resource Locators or Unreliable Resource Locators, 60 C. AND RESEARCH LIBR. 359 (2000); Mei Kobayashi and Koichi Takeda, Information Retrieval on the Web, 32 ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS 144 (2000); Mary K. Taylor and Diane Hudson, “Linkrot” and the Usefulness of Web Site Bibliographies, 39 REF. & USER SERV. Q. 273 (2000).
10. S. Mary P. Benhow, File Not Found: The Problem of Changing URLs for the World Wide Web, 8 INTERNET RESEARCH: NETWORK APPLICATIONS & POL’Y 247, 248 (1998).
11. Mary Rumsey, Runaway Train: Problems of Permanence, Accessibility, and Stability in the Use of Web Resources in Law Review Citations, 94 LAW LIBR. J. 27, 35 (2002).
12. Wallace Koehler, A Longitudinal Study of Web Pages Continued: A Consideration of Document Persistence, 9:2 INFO. RESEARCH paper 174 (2004), http://informationr.net/ir/9–2/paper174.html.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Junghoo Cho and Hector Garcia-Molina, The Evolution of the Web and Implications for an Incremental Crawler, in PROC. OF THE 26TH INT’L CONF. ON VERY LARGE DATA BASES 200 (2000).
16. Id. at 205.
17. Id. at 208.
18. Brian E. Brewington and George Cybenko, How Dynamic Is the Web?, 33 COMPUTER NETWORKS 257, 258–259, 261 (2000).
19. Dennis Fetterly, Mark Manasse, Marc Najork, and Janet L. Wiener, A Large-Scale Study of the Evolution of Web Pages, 34 SOFTWARE PRAC. & EXPERIENCE 213 (2004).
20. Daniel Gomes and Mario J. Silva, Modelling Information Persistence on the Web, in PROC. OF THE 6TH INT’L CONF. ON WEB ENGINEERING 193, 193 (2006).
21. Id.
22. Id. at 195.
23. Id. at 194–195.
24. Id. at 196–197.
25. Id.
26. Id. at 199.
27. Jinyoung Kim and Viktor R. Carvalho, An Analysis of Time Stability in Web Search Results, in PROC. OF THE 33RD EUROPEAN CONF. ON ADVANCES IN INFO. RETRIEVAL 466 (2011).
28. Rick Weiss, On the Web, Research Work Proves Ephemeral, WASH. POST (Nov. 24, 2003), http://faculty.missouri.edu/glaserr/205f03/Article_WebPub.html.
29. Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Lawrence Lessig, Perma: Scoping and Addressing the Problem of Link and Reference Rot in Legal Citations, 14:2 LEGAL INFO. MANAGEMENT 88 (2014).
30. Perma, About, https://perma.cc/about (accessed June 12, 2015).
31. Wallace Koehler, A Longitudinal Study of Web Pages Continued: A Consideration of Document Persistence, 9:2 INFO. RESEARCH paper 174 (2004), http://informationr.net/ir/9–2/paper174.html.
32. Stuart I. Feldman, A Conversation with Brewster Kahle, 2 QUEUE 24, 26 (June 2004), http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1016993.
33. Id.
34. Brewster Kahle, Preserving the Internet, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (July 27, 1998), http://web.archive.org/web/19980627072808/http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397kahle.html (“To address these worries, we let authors exclude their works from the archive. We are also considering allowing researchers to obtain broad censuses of the archive data instead of individual documents—one could count the total number of references to pachyderms on the Web, for instance, but not look at a specific elephant home page. These measures, we hope, will suffice to allay immediate concerns about privacy and intellectual-property rights. Over time, the issues addressed in setting up the Internet Archive might help resolve the larger policy debates on intellectual property and privacy by testing concepts such as fair use on the Internet.”).
35. The Social Network (Columbia Pictures 2010).
36. Holman W. Jenkins Jr., Google and the Search for the Future, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 14, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html.
37. JONATHAN ZITTRAIN, THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET . . . AND HOW TO STOP IT 228 (2009).
38. John Hendel, In Europe, a Right to Be Forgotten Trumps the Memory of the Internet, ATLANTIC (Feb. 3, 2011).
39. GORDON BELL AND JIM GEMMELL, TOTAL RECALL: HOW THE E-MEMORY REVOLUTION WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING (2009).
40. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 5 (2009).
41. GORDON BELL AND JIM GEMMELL, TOTAL RECALL: HOW THE E-MEMORY REVOLUTION WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING 159 (2009).
42. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, DELETE: THE VIRTUE OF FORGETTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 57 (2009).
43. GORDON BELL AND JIM GEMMELL, TOTAL RECALL: HOW THE E-MEMORY REVOLUTION WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING 56 (2009).
44. The old “online diary” was similar to a blogging program with a file system that allowed for edits and deletions. It must be noted that after the movie’s success, it was dug up and can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/538697/Mark-Zuckerbergs-Online-Diary.
45. Sumit Paul-Choudhury, Digital Legacy: The Fate of Your Online Soul, NEW SCIENTIST (May 15, 2012), http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028091.400-digital-legacy-the-fate-of-your-online-soul.html.
46. Id.
47. Lee Moran and Beth Stebner, Now FBI Launch Investigation into Founder of “Revenge Porn” Site Is Anyone Up?, DAILY MAIL (May 23, 2012), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148522/Hunter-Moore-founder-revenge-porn-site-Is-Anyone-Up-investigated-FBI.html.
48. Id.
49. Id.
50. College Gossip Website Shuts Down, Citing Economy, USA TODAY (Feb. 5, 2009), http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/Internetlife/2009–02–05-juicycampus_N.htm.
51. Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa, Caitlin Davis’ Life Is Not So Cheery Now, BOSTON HERALD (Nov. 5, 2008), http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2008_11_05_Caitlin_Davis_booted_from_Patriots__cheering_squad.
52. David Frankel, The Excavator: Creator or Destroyer?, 67 ANTIQUITY 875 (Dec. 1993).
53. Society of American Archivists, Code of Ethics for Archivists, SAA Council Approval/Endorsement (Feb. 2005), http://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics.
54. Peter Lyman and Howard Besser, Defining the Problem of Our Vanishing Memory: Background, Current Status, Models for Resolution, in TIME & BITS: MANAGING DIGITAL CONTINUITY 11, 19 (Margaret MacLean and Ben H. Davis eds., 1998).
55. RICHARD A. SPINELLO, CASE STUDIES IN INFORMATION AND COMPUTER ETHICS 7 (1997).
56. DAVID G. HILL, DATA PROTECTION: GOVERNANCE, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND COMPLIANCE 57 (2009).
57. These are the mechanisms set forth by Lawrence Lessig in CODE: VERSION 2.0 (2006).
58. DANIEL SOLOVE, THE FUTURE OF REPUTATION: GOSSIP, RUMOR, AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET 11 (2007) (citing a comment to a blog post about the Korean responses to “Dog Poop Girl,” a girl who refused to pick up after her dog in a subway car, which resulted in an online shaming campaign).
59. Rafael Capurro and Birger Hjorland, The Concept of Information, 37 ANN. REV. INFO. SCI. & TECH. 343, 358–359 (2003).
60. Id. at 360–361.
61. LEON BRILLOUIN, SCIENCE AND INFORMATION THEORY x–xi (2d ed. 1962).
62. Gernot Wersig, Information Theory, in INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE 312–313 (John Feather and Paul Sturges eds., 2003).
63. DAVID G. HILL, DATA PROTECTION: GOVERNANCE, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND COMPLIANCE 57 (2009).
64. DAVID G. LUENBERGER, INFORMATION SCIENCE 130 (2006).
65. Id.
66. Rashi H. Glazer, Measuring the Value of Information: The Information-Intensive Organization, 32 IBM SYSTEMS J. 99, 101 (1993).
67. Id.
68. See Michael J. Driver and Theodore J. Mock, Human Information Processing Decision Style Theory, and Accounting Information Systems, 50 ACCOUNTING REV. 490 (1975); Jacob Jakoby, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn, Brand Choice as a Function of Information Overload: Replication and Extension, 1:1 J. CONSUM. RESEARCH 33 (1974); Charles A. O’Reilly, Individuals and Information Overload in Organisations: Is More Necessarily Better?, 23 ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT J. 684 (1980).
69. Paul M. Schwartz, Data Protection Law and the Ethical Use of Analytics, CENTRE FOR INFORMATION POLICY LEADERSHIP (2010), http://www.huntonfiles.com/files/webupload/CIPL_Ethical_Undperinnings_of_Analytics_Paper.pdf.
70. Patricia Cohen, Questioning Privacy Protections in Research, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 23, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/arts/rules-meant-to-protect-human-research-subjects-cause-concern.html?pagewanted=all.
71. The public-figure doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 173 (1967), held that a prominent public person has to prove actual malice, knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false.
72. Wallace has already removed videos using DMCA takedown notices. Student in Asian Tirade Video Quits University after “Death Threats and Harassment,” DAILY MAIL (Mar. 19, 2011), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367923/Alexandra-Wallace-YouTube-video-Student-Asian-race-row-quits-Californian-university.html.
73. Chi. Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 248 (7th Cir. 1975).
74. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 720 (1931).
75. Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971).
76. See N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714, 724 (1971).
77. Id. at 730.
78. Id. at 733.
79. Franz Werro, The Right to Inform v. the Right to Be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash, in LIABILITY IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM 285 (Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Christine Godt, Peter Rott, and Leslie Jane Smith eds., 2009).
80. Id. at 290.
81. Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corporation, 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 711 (1940).
82. Id.
83. Schwabe v. Austria, Application no. 13704/88 (Aug. 28, 1992).
84. This is a recent divergence. In previous generations, substantial truth within context was required in the U.S. as well. See Randall P. Bezanson, The Libel Tort Today, 45 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 535 (1988).
85. Cemalettin Canli v Turkey, Application no. 22427/04 (Nov. 18, 2008).
86. M.M. v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 24029/07 (Nov. 13, 2012).
87. Id. at para. 13.
88. DP Directive 95/46, Art. 6(1)(e).
89. DP Directive 95/46, Art. 12(b).
90. Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (Euro. Ct. of Justice May 13, 2014), at para. 93.
91. DP Regulation, Art. 17(3)(a)–(d), at 52.
92. Melville B. Nimmer, The Right to Speak from Time to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy, 56 CAL. L. REV. 935, 942 (1967).
93. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
94. Az 3 U 1288/13 (May 20, 2014). For English reporting on the case, see Philip Oltermann, “Revenge Porn” Victims Receive Boost from German Court, GUARDIAN (May 22, 2014).
95. Az 3 U 1288/13 (May 20, 2014).
96. Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (Euro. Ct. of Justice May 13, 2014).
97. Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa, Caitlin Davis’ Life Is Not So Cheery Now, BOSTON HERALD (Nov. 5, 2008), http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2008_11_05_Caitlin_Davis_booted_from_Patriots__cheering_squad.
98. Alexandra Wallace, Student in Anti-Asian Rant, Says She’ll Leave UCLA, THE HUFFINGTON POST (Mar. 19, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/alexandra-wallace-student_n_837925.html.
99. Wikipedia, “Biographies of Living Persons,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy (last modified Feb. 3, 2013).
100. Wikipedia, Talk: Star Wars Kid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Kid (last modified Jan. 9, 2013).
101. Wikipedia, Wikipedia: Notability, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability (last modified July 5, 2015).
102. Id.
103. Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk: Talk Pages Not Indexed by Google, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_not_indexed_by_Google (last modified Aug. 22, 2014).
104. BGH, Decisions of 15 Dec. 2009—VI ZR 217/08 (rainbow.at); Decisions of 15 Dec. 2009—VI ZR 227/08 and 228/08 (Deutschlandradio); Decisions of 9 Feb. 2010—VI ZR 243/08 and 244/08 (Spiegel online); Decisions of 20 Apr. 2010—VI ZR 245/08 and 246/08 (morgenweb.de).
105. Firth v. New York, 98 N.Y. 2d 365, 368–369 (2002).
106. Id. at 369.
107. Id.
108. Id. at 370.
109. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2551 (2012) (plurality opinion) (U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to lie about receiving a Medal of Honor, finding that these false statements are protected by the First Amendment and that the statute was overbroad because violations of the law did not result in cognizable harm).
1. Dan Morain, Anthony Kennedy Speaks about History, Civics, Flag Burning, and Emerging Issues, SACRAMENTO BEE (June 29, 2014), http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/29/6512694/anthony-kennedy-speaks-about-history.html#storylink=cpy.
2. Do Not Track Kids Act, 685, § 2(17).
3. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 496 (1975).
4. JAMES Q. WHITMAN, HARSH JUSTICE: CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT AND THE WIDENING DIVIDE BETWEEN AMERICA AND EUROPE (2003).
5. Id. at 41–68.
6. Id. at 4.
7. Id. at 8.
8. Id. at 86–87.
9. Id. at 65.
10. Samantha Barbas, The Death of the Public Disclosure Tort: A Historical Perspective, 22 YALE J. L. & HUMAN. 171, 171 (2010).
11. A full analysis of U.S. forgiveness laws was performed in Seeking Digital Redemption: The Future of Forgiveness in the Internet Age, 29 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 99 (2012), authored by myself (then Ambrose), Nicole Day (then Friess) and Jill Dupre (then Van Matre). It provides a detailed assessment of which the results are presented here.
12. Allen Salkin, What’s in a Name? Ask Google, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 25, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/fashion/google-searches-help-parents-narrow-down-baby-names.html?_r=2&ref=technology.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. See generally PRISCILLA M. REGAN, LEGISLATING PRIVACY: TECHNOLOGY, SOCIAL VALUES, AND PUBLIC POLICY (1995) (discussing the social importance of privacy and arguing the necessity of addressing its benefits in policy debate).
16. Megan McArdle, Sink and Swim, ATLANTIC (June 1, 2009).
17. Id.
18. See Charles H. Cosgrove, The Declaration of Independence in Constitutional Interpretation: A Selective History and Analysis, 32 U. RICH. L. REV. 107 (1998) (particularly Cosgrove’s discussion of the ways in which the abolitionist movement utilized the Declaration of Independence to undermine the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution).
19. Cass R. Sunstein, Low Value Speech Revisited, 83 NW. U. L. REV. 555 (1988).
20. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
21. Barber v. Time, Inc., 348 Mo. 1199, 1207 (Mo. 1942).
22. Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co., 665 F.2d 305, 307–308 (10th Cir. 1981).
23. Shulman v. Group W. Productions, Inc. 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843, 862 (Cal. 1998).
24. Paul Ohm has argued that it should be illegal for employers to refuse to hire or fire individuals for legal activities performed off duty that are discovered on social networking sites or search-engine results. Jeffrey Rosen, The Web Means the End of Forgetting, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE (July 21, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?pagewanted=all.
25. Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, Dec. 27, 1820, available at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/75.html.
26. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2552 (2012).
27. Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 2008); Denver Pub. Co. v. Bueno, 54 P.3d 893 (Col. 2002).
28. Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., 276 S.W.3d 319, 325 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).
29. See Comins v. VanVoorhis, 135 So.3d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014); Thieriot v. The Wrapnews Inc., No. B245022 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2014). Additionally, note that North Dakota, a state that has adopted the Uniform Correction Act, is the only state with a retraction statute that explicitly mentions electronic publications.
30. Public.Resource.org, Why Is My Court Case on the Internet?, https://public.resource.org/court_cases.html (accessed June 5, 2015).
31. For future extensions of the robots.txt protocol, see BRIAN WASSOM, AUGMENTED REALITY LAW, PRIVACY, AND ETHICS: LAW, SOCIETY, EMERGING AR TECHNOLOGIES 56–57 (2015).
32. See http://bulk.resource.org/robots.txt for a list of files “disallowed” for crawlers by Public.Resource.org.
33. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 706 (1931).
34. Alexander v. U.S., 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993) (distinguishing the permanent injunction, which prevented future publication of “malicious, scandalous or defamatory” content, overturned in Near from the RICO forfeiture at issue in Alexander).
35. Graboff v. AAOS and AAOS, No. 2:12-cv-05491-JHS at 1 (E.D.P.A. May 2, 2013).
36. David S. Ardia, Freedom of Speech, Defamation, and Injunctions, 55 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1 (2013).
37. Id. at 42–51.
38. Cochran v. Tory, No. BC239405, 2002 WL 33966354 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 24, 2002) (order granting permanent injunction), aff’d, No. B159437, 2003 WL 22451378, at 1 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2003), vacated, 544 U.S. 734 (2005).
39. Id.
40. Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005).
41. David S. Ardia, Freedom of Speech, Defamation, and Injunctions, 55 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1, 50–51 (2013).
42. Id. at 2.
43. Justice Blackmun’s concurrence, joined by Justice Marshall, in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 443 U.S. 157, 171 (1979), maintained that “public figure” status could fade with the passage of time and that historians may be implicated more than journalists (“Historians, consequently, may well run a greater risk of liability for defamation.”).
44. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. 749, 763 (1989).
45. Id. at 770 (quoting William H. Rehnquist, Is an Expanded Right of Privacy Consistent with Fair and Effective Law Enforcement?, 23 U. KAN. L. REV. 1 (1974)).
46. Halloran v. Veterans Admin., 874 F.2d 315, 322 (5th Cir. 1989).
47. Swafford v. Memphis Individual Practice Ass’n, 1998 WL 281935 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
48. Id. at 10.
49. FRANK PASQUALE, THE BLACK BOX SOCIETY (2014).
50. NEIL M. RICHARDS, INTELLECTUAL PRIVACY: RETHINKING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE DIGITAL AGE 80–89 (2015).
51. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 2653 (2011).
52. Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking about You, 52 STAN. L. REV. 1049 (2000); Ashutosh Bhagwat, Sorrel v. IMS Health: Details, Detailing, and the Death of Privacy, 36 VT. L. REV. 855 (2012); Jane Bambauer, Is Data Speech?, 66 STAN. L. REV. 57 (2014).
53. Jane Bambauer, Is Data Speech?, 66 STAN. L. REV. 57, 63 (2014).
54. NEIL M. RICHARDS, INTELLECTUAL PRIVACY: RETHINKING CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE DIGITAL AGE 155 (2015).
55. danah boyd and Eszter Hargittai, Facebook Privacy Settings: Who Cares?, 15 FIRST MONDAY (2010), http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3086/2589.
56. REYNOL JUNCO, ENGAGING STUDENTS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA: EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES FOR USE IN STUDENT AFFAIRS (2014).
57. Id. at 117.
58. Kaplan, Kaplan Test Prep Survey: More College Admissions Officers Checking Applicants’ Digital Trails, but Most Students Unconcerned (Nov. 20, 2014), http://press.kaptest.com/press-releases/kaplan-test-prep-survey-percentage-of-college-admissions-officers-who-visit-applicants-social-networking-pages-continues-to-grow-but-most-students-shrug.
59. Digital Birth: Welcome to the Online World, BUSINESS WIRE (Oct. 6, 2010), http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101006006722/en/Digital-Birth-Online-World#.VD17VfldUud.
60. Anupam Chander, Youthful Indiscretion in an Internet Age, in THE OFFENSIVE INTERNET: SPEECH, PRIVACY, AND REPUTATION 124, 125 (Saul Levmore and Martha C. Nussbaum eds., 2010).
61. Common Sense with Phineas and Ferb (Disney Channel television broadcast Jan. 27, 2010). Transcript:
Candace: Mom! Phineas and Ferb are making a public service announcement!
Phineas: Be careful what you put online! It never goes away! Ever!
[Video of Heinz Doofenshmirtz falling into a toilet on roller skates plays on computer]
Phineas: Fame is fleeting!
Ferb: But the Internet is forever.
Phineas: And you never know who’s gonna see it!
Candace [holding disk]: There’s no way I’m letting this baby out of my sight!
Norm [lifting up roof]: Hello, children! I’ll take that!
62. Paulan Korenhof and Bert-Jaap Koops, Gender Identity and Privacy: Could a Right to Be Forgotten Help Andrew Agnes Online?, SSRN WORKING PAPER (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2304190 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2304190.
63. HAROLD GARFINKEL, STUDIES IN ETHNOMETHODOLOGY 136 (1967).
64. See the Transgender Law Center’s Equality Map: http://transgenderlawcenter.org/equalitymap.
65. Ilene Seidman and Susan Vickers, The Second Wave: An Agenda for the Next Thirty Years of Rape Law Reform, 38 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 467, 473 (2005) (discussing the importance of privacy for victims of sexual assault).
66. Mary Anne Franks, Unwilling Avatars: Idealism and Discrimination in Cyberspace, 20 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 224 (2011); Danielle Keats Citron and Mary Anne Franks, Criminalizing Revenge Porn, 49 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 345 (2014).
67. Ann Wolbert Burgess and Lynda Lytle Holmstrom, Rape Trauma Syndrome, 131 AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 981 (1974).
68. Jacqueline R. Rolfs, The Florida Star v. B.J.F.: The Beginning of the End for the Tort of Public Disclosure, 1990 WIS. L. REV. 1107 (1990).
69. Florida Star v. B.J.F., 109 S. Ct. 2603, 2613 (1989).
1. Dan Raywood, Internet to Enter Its Second Stage as Large Domains Control 30 Per Cent of the Total Content, SC MAGAZINE UK (Oct. 13, 2009), http://www.scmagazineuk.com/internet-to-enter-its-second-stage-as-large-domains-control-30-per-cent-of-the-total-content/article/152156/ (“Out of the 40,000 routed end sites in the Internet, large companies such as Limelight, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and YouTube now generate and consume 30 per cent of all Internet traffic.”).
2. While responses to legal requests for information may vary (efforts like Europe v. Facebook, http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html, and #NOLOGs, https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/what-does-twitter-know-about-its-users-nologs, may extend user access to those requests deriving from non-EU users, but they are not required to), it is expensive to design country- or region-specific systems.
3. Google, European Privacy Requests for Search Removals, TRANSPARENCY REPORT (updated Feb. 15, 2015), http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/.
4. DP Directive 95/46/EC.
5. Viviane Reding, Speech at New Frontiers for Social Media Marketing Conference, EU Data Protection Reform and Social Media: Encouraging Citizens’ Trust and Creating New Opportunities (Nov. 29, 2011) (transcript available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11–827_en.htm).
6. Vivane Reding, Speech at The Privacy Platform, the Review of the EU Data Protection Framework Event (Mar. 16, 2011) (transcript available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/183).
7. JOHN PALFREY AND URS GASSER, INTEROP: THE PROMISE AND PERILS OF HIGHLY INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS 3 (2012).
8. Id. at 178.
9. Zippo Mfr. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
10. Id.
11. Steven C. Bennett, The “Right to Be Forgotten”: Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 161, 186–187 (2012).
12. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrect, Rapporteur’s Report on Draft Report of General Data Protection Regulation, COM(2012)0011–C7 0025/2012–2012/0011(COD) (Dec. 17, 2012).
13. Id. (citing Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Working Document on Determining the International Application of EU Data Protection Law to Personal Data Processing on the Internet by Non-EU Based Web Sites, 5035/01/EN/Final, WP 56 (May 30, 2002)).
14. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA), 433 F.3d 1199, 1217 (9th Cir. 2006).
15. Case No. RG: 00/05308, Association “l’Union des Etudiant Juifs de France,” la “Ligue contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme” c. Yahoo! et Yahoo France [2000], May 22, 2000, http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=175. This order was subsequently confirmed by the same court (although the May 22, 2000, order specified a penalty of €100,000, and the later order, on November 20, 2000, specified a penalty of ₣100,000). Case No. RG: 00/05308, Association “l’Union des Etudiant Juifs de France,” la “Ligue contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme” c. Yahoo! et Yahoo France [2000], November 20, 2000 (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, May 22, 2000) (LICRA and UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France), http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=217.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F. Supp. 2d. 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
19. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).
20. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F. Supp. 2d. 1181, 1186 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
21. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA, 433 F.3d 1199, 1215 (9th Cir. 2006).
22. Id.
23. UTA KOHL, JURISDICTION AND THE INTERNET: REGULATORY COMPETENCE OVER ONLINE ACTIVITY 208 (2007).
24. Google, France—Government Removal Requests, TRANSPARENCY REPORT, http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/FR/ (accessed June 5, 2015).
25. Google, Government Removal Requests, TRANSPARENCY REPORT, https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/faq/ (accessed June 5, 2015).
26. Steven C. Bennett, The “Right to Be Forgotten”: Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, 30 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 161, 186 (2012).
27. DP Regulation, Art. 79(5)(c), LIBE edits.
28. Emma Woollacott, EU to Vote on Scrapping “Safe Harbor” Data Rules, FORBES (Dec. 18, 2013), http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2013/12/18/eu-to-vote-on-scrapping-safe-harbor-data-rules/.
29. European Parliament, US NSA: Stop Mass Surveillance Now or Face Consequences, MEPs Say, press release (Mar. 12, 2014), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140307IPR38203/html/US-NSA-stop-mass-surveillance-now-or-face-consequences-MEPs-say.
30. Karin Matussek, Snowden Leaks Killed U.S.-E.U. Data Deal, Regulator Say, BLOOMBERG BUSINESS (Jan. 28, 2015), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015–01–28/snowden-leaks-killed-u-s-e-u-data-deal-regulator-say.
31. Yuri Kageyama, Japan Court Orders Google to Remove Search Results, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Oct. 10, 2014), http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_GOOGLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014–10–10–12–29–58.
32. European Commission, Myth-Busing: The Court of Justice of the EU and the “Right to Be Forgotten” (2014), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbusting_en.pdf.
33. ECJ, Case C-101/01, Bodil Lindqvist (Nov. 6, 2003).
34. Id. at para. 47.
35. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 5/2009 on Online Social Networking (WP 163) (Dec. 6, 2009).
36. C / 13/569654 / KG ZA 14–960 PS / BB (Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court)), Sept. 18, 2014), available at http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:6118.
37. Caroline Chancé and Carol A. F. Umhoefer, France: Right to Be Forgotten—Application of the Balancing Test Derived from the Google v. Costeja Case, LEXOLOGY (Feb. 10, 2015).
38. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González,” C-131/12, 14/EN WP 225 (Nov. 26, 2014).
39. GOOGLE ADVISORY COUNCIL, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO GOOGLE ON THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN REPORT (Feb. 6, 2015), https://www.google.com/advisorycouncil/.
40. JACK GOLDSMITH AND TIM WU, WHO CONTROLS THE INTERNET? ILLUSIONS OF A BORDERLESS WORLD 6–9 (2008).
41. Kashmir Hill, Google Makes Every Person Search in Europe Look Censored, FORBES (July 2, 2014), http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/07/02/google-right-to-be-forgotten-notice/.
42. Council Directive 2000/31, 2000 O.J. (L 178), Art. 14.
43. Council Directive 2000/31, 2000 O.J. (L 178), Art. 15.
44. Payam Tamiz v. Google, Inc. [2013] EWCA Civ. 68, para. 35.
45. Id.
46. Delfi AS v. Estonia, no. 64569/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 86 (Oct. 10, 2013).
47. European Commission, Issued by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, press release (Sept. 18, 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/2014/20140918_wp29_press_release_97th_plenary_cjeu_google_judgment__17sept_adopted.pdf.
48. European Commission, The Proposed General Data Protection Regulation: The Consistency Mechanism Explained (2013), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/130206_en.htm.
49. Robert Gellman, Fair Information Practices: A Basic History, Version 1.91 (2012), http://bobgellman.com/rg-docs/rg-FIPShistory.pdf.
50. See Robert Kirk Walker, Forcing Forgetfulness: Data Privacy, Free Speech, and the “Right to Be Forgotten,” SSRN WORKING PAPER 42–48 (2012), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017967 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2017967.
51. Paul Alexander Bernal, A Right to Delete?, 2 EUR. J. L. & TECH. (2011), http://ejlt.org/article/view/75/144.
52. Jeffrey Rosen, The Right to Be Forgotten, 64 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 88, 90 (2012), http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten.
53. Network Advertising Initiative, Consumer Opt-Out | NAI: Network Advertising Initiative, http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/#completed (accessed June 5, 2015).
54. Harrison, How Our Opt-Out System Works, SPOKEO PEOPLE SEARCH BLOG (Jan. 12, 2011), https://web.archive.org/web/20110116031332/http://www.spokeo.com/blog/2011/01/how-spokeo-opt-out-system-works/ (for Spokeo’s updated process, see http://www.spokeo.com/opt_out/new).
55. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Do Not Track, https://www.eff.org/issues/do-not-track (accessed June 5, 2015).
56. See Facebook, Facebook Data Use Policy, https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy (accessed Aug. 1, 2014; for older version, see https://web.archive.org/web/20140805060652/https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy) (The policy includes a number of clauses, including the following: “While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information.” “We store data for as long as it is necessary to provide products and services to you and others, including those described above. Typically, information associated with your account will be kept until your account is deleted.” “It typically takes about one month to delete an account, but some information may remain in backup copies and logs for up to 90 days.”).
57. See, e.g., National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: Dynamic Policy Framework (2010), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2010/commercial-data-privacy-and-innovationInternet-economy-dynamic-policy-framework (proposing the following set of FIPPs: transparency, individual participation, purpose specification, data minimization, use limitation, data quality and integrity, security, and accountability and auditing).
58. Eugene Volokh and Donald M. Falk, Google: First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Search Results, 8 J. L. ECON. & POL’Y 883 (2011).
59. Id.
60. Id. at 887.
61. Wikipedia, Talk: Star Wars Kid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Kid (last modified Jan. 9, 2013).
62. Society of American Archivists, Code of Ethics for Archivists, SAA Council Approval/Endorsement (Feb. 2005), http://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics.
63. Internet Archive, Internet Archive’s Policies on Archival Integrity and Removal (2002), http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html.
64. Edwin Lane, Google Removes 12 BBC News Links in “Right to Be Forgotten,” BBC NEWS (Aug. 19, 2014), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28851366.
65. Briton Guilty of Running Vice Ring, BBC NEWS (Oct. 23, 2003), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3206355.stm.
66. Katie Storey, Evil Killer Ronald Castree Should Never Be Forgotten, Says Father of Lesley Molseed, MANCHESTER EVENING NEWS (Sept. 25, 2014), http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/evil-killer-should-never-forgotten-7834956.
67. Jeff Jonas, Data Tethering: Managing the Echo, JEFF JONAS BLOG (Sept. 21, 2006), http://jeffjonas.typepad.com/jeff_jonas/2006/09/data_tethering_.html.
68. Id.
69. Frances Robinson, EU Data Protection Law on Track for Juncker Deadline, WALL ST. J. (Oct. 10, 2014), http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2014/10/10/eu-data-protection-law-on-track-for-juncker-deadline/.
70. Paul M. Schwartz, The EU-US Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures 126 HARV. L. REV. 1966 (2013) (citing Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect, 107 NW. U. L. REV. 1 (2012)).
71. Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect, 107 NW. U. L. REV. 10–17 (2012).
72. Paul M. Schwartz, The EU-US Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures 126 HARV. L. REV. 1966, 1990–1992 (2013) (citing ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, A NEW WORLD ORDER (2004)).
73. ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, A NEW WORLD ORDER 5 (2004).
74. Ryan J. Barilleaux, The President, “Intermestic” Issues, and the Risks of Policy Leadership, 15:4 PERSPECTIVES ON THE PRESIDENCY 754 (1985).
75. H. O. Maycotte, America’s “Right to Be Forgotten” Fight Heats Up, FORBES (Sept. 30, 2014), http://www.forbes.com/sites/homaycotte/2014/09/30/americas-right-to-be-forgotten-fight-heats-up/.
76. Id.
77. Jill Lepore, The Disruption Machine, NEW YORKER (June 23, 2014).