유럽연합과 미국의 잊힐 권리에 관한 입법 소고
A Study on the Right to be Forgotten of the EU and the USA
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
스마트 시대의 폭발적인 정보의 증가로 개인정보에 관한 보호 및 삭제에 많은 관심이 집중되고 있다. 개인정보에 대한 접근가능성의 획기적인 증가 및 그로 인한 피해는 많은 사례 속에서 개인정보보호의 당위성을 부여하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 유럽연합은 일반정보보호규정의 제정(General Data Protection Regulation : GDPR)을 통해 그 필요성에 대응하였다. 특히 일반정보보호규정 속 잊힐 권리를 통해 정보주체인 개인에게 자신의 개인정보에 관한 광범위한 법적근거를 제시하고 있다. 잊힐 권리란 넓은 의미로 개개인에게 인터넷상에서 그들의 평판과 정체성에 관한 보다 큰 통제력을 행사할 수 있는 권리를 의미한다. 그러나 잊힐 권리는 적용범위, 정보의 삭제와 정보처리자의 의무 및 그 기술적 한계 그리고 다른 기본권과의 충돌 등의 많은 문제점이 지적되어 왔다. 따라서 유럽연합이 제정한 일반정보보호규정의 입법동향을 그 시간적 흐름에 따라 수정과 변화를 살펴보고 여전히 존재하는 문제점과 한계에 관하여 비판적으로 고찰한다. 이를 바탕으로 개인정보보호 법률에 관한 주요국의 입장 차이를 확인하고 각국의 개별 법률과 유럽연합의 일반정보보호규정이 요구하는 정보보호수준의 차이를 줄여나가는 방안의 모색이 필요할 뿐이다.
Abstract
There is growing concern explosively about personal data protection and erasure on the Internet. In the light of personal data protection, the EU have prepared it’s own data protection system called the General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR). If the European Parliament and European Council approve the proposed General Data Protection Regulation, citizens of the EU will gain a new right called the "Right to be Forgotten or Right to Erasure. The Right to be Forgotten empowers individuals to assert greater control over their reputations and identities on the Internet. At the end of 2015 the three main institutions of the EU, European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission entered co-decision negotiations on the proposed General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) and then finally they reached a Political agreement. Therefore This controversial right would grant individual citizens the ability to demand the permanent removal of personal content from the Internet. However, further analysis reveals glaring issues with its effect on freedom of expression and notions of privacy. Since the right on freedom of expression is the first priority in the USA, the EU should have to narrow the Right to forgotten. While the Regulation provides exceptions for content deemed artistic, journalistic, or literary, it leaves the determination of what constitutes an exception to the entity in charge of its removal (i.e. Google or Facebook). Furthermore, it penalizes companies for noncompliance. This has the potential to forcefully transform the role of these Internet companies from hosts to censors. In addition there are lots of issues on the Right to be Forgotten such as defining the scope of the Right to erasure and the technological barriers to implement the Right to erasure. Therefore the General Data Protection Regulation harmonises the data protection rules between the European Union and the other countries such as the USA.
참고문헌 (29)
- 고은별, "EU와 한국에 구현된 잊혀질 권리의 차이 -개인정보보호 측면에서의 비교 분석-", 정보과학지 (2012)
- 유충호, "새로운 인격권으로서 잊힐 권리의 보장에 관한 고찰", 홍익법학, 15(1), pp.29~56 (2014), 법학연구소
- 이재진, "인터넷에서의 피해구제를 위한 잊혀질 권리의 정립", 선진화 정책시리즈 (2009)
- 함인선, "EU개인정보보호법제에 관한 연구 - ‘2012년 개인정보보호규칙안’을 중심으로 하여 -", 저스티스, (133), pp.5~38 (2012), 한국법학원
- 함인선, "개인정보 처리와 관련한 법적 문제 - 우리나라 「개인정보 보호법」과 EU의 ‘2012년 규칙안’을 중심으로 하여 -", 경제규제와 법, 6(1), pp.150~171 (2013), 법학연구소
- 황해륙, "잊혀질 권리에 대한 소고 – 유럽연합 개인정보보호규칙(안)을 중심으로 -", 법학논고, (44), pp.361~386 (2013), 법학연구원[DOI]
- Alessandro Mantelero, "The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’", computer law & security review, 29 (2013)
- Ambrose Meg Leta, "Speaking of forgetting: Analysis of possible non-EU responses to the right to be forgotten and speech exception", Telecommunications Policy, 38 (2014)
- 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", 121 wp225, 2014
- Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, "Opinion 08", 2012 providing further input on the data protection reform discussions, 2012
- "CDT Analysis of the Proposed Data Protection Regulation, CTR. FOR DEMOCRACY & TECH", ~ (2012)
- Christoper Rees, "The ‘right to be forgotten’ or the ‘principle that has been remembered’", computer law & securityreview, 30 (2014)
- "Commission Decision 2000", 520, 46, pp.EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, OJ 2000 L 215, 2000[DOI]
- - Political agreement, , 2016
- Council of the European Union, "Position of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), and repealing Directive 95", 46, pp.2016, ~
- Court of Justice of the European Union, "Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, the Court of the Justice declares that the Commission's US Safe Harbour Decision is Invalid, Case-362", 14, 2015
- "Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469", ~ (1975)
- "EDPS recommendations on the EU’s options for data protection reform, Official Journal of the European Union, EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR, 2015", C 301, pp.2015, ~
- Emily Adams Shoor, "NARROWING THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN: WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION NEEDS TO AMEND THE PROPOSED DATA PROTECTION REGULATION", Brook. J. Int'l L., 39(1) (2014)
- EUROPEAN COMMISSION, "Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation)", COM, ~ (2012)
- REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), GDPR Compromise Text, , ~ (2013)
- Francoise Gilbert, "The Right of Erasure or Right to Be Forgotten: What the Recent Laws, Cases, and Guidelines Mean for Global Companies", Journal of Inernet Law, 18 (2015)
- Justin Brookman, "Euro Security Experts Deem 'Right to be Forgotten' Impossible", CTR. FOR DEMOCRACY & TECH, ~ (2012)
- Lee A. Bygrave, "Law and Technology-A Right to be Forgotten?", communication of the ACM, 58 (2015)
- Michael Backes, "The Right to Be Forgotten - Between Expectations and Practice", EUR, ~ (2012)
- W. Gregory Voss, "The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Union: Enforcement in the Court of Justice and Amendment to the Proposed General Data Protection Regulation", Journal of Internet Law (2014)