Jump to content

Hakkin a manta da shi

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.
Hakkin a manta da shi
Bayanai
Ƙaramin ɓangare na Hakkokin Yan-adam da case law (en) Fassara
Immediate cause of (en) Fassara Q3001148 Fassara
Depicted by (en) Fassara For Google The Right To Be Forgotten Is An Unforgettable Fiasco (en) Fassara

Hakkin mantawa (RTBF [1]) shine haƙƙin samun bayanan sirri game da mutum da za a cire daga binciken Intanet da sauran kundin adireshi a wasu yanayi. Batun ya samo asali ne daga sha'awar mutane don "ƙayyade ci gaban rayuwarsu ta hanyar cin gashin kanta, ba tare da an nuna musu ba ko kuma lokaci-lokaci sakamakon wani takamaiman aikin da aka yi a baya".[2]::231 Hakkin yana ba da damar mutum ya sami bayanai game da su don haka ba za a iya gano shi ta wasu ba, musamman ta hanyar injunan bincike.[3]:121

Wadanda suka goyi bayan haƙƙin da za a manta da shi sun nuna bukatarsa saboda batutuwan kamar shafukan batsa na fansa da nassoshi ga ƙananan laifuka da suka gabata da suka bayyana a cikin jerin injin bincike don sunan mutum. Babban damuwa shine yiwuwar tasirin da ba daidai ba wanda irin wannan sakamakon zai iya yi a kan sunan mutum na kan layi har abada idan ba a cire shi ba.

Wadanda ke adawa da haƙƙin damuwa game da tasirinsa akan haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da kuma ko ƙirƙirar haƙƙin da za a manta da shi zai haifar da raguwar ingancin Intanet, tantancewa, da sake rubuta tarihi.[4]

Hakkin da za a manta da shi ya bambanta da haƙƙin sirri. Hakkin sirri ya ƙunshi bayanan da ba a sani ba a fili, yayin da haƙƙin da za a manta da shi ya haɗa da soke damar jama'a ga bayanan da aka sani a fili a wani lokaci.[3]:122[5]

Amincewa da iko

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Argentina

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Argentina ta yi karar da fitattun mutane suka yi a kan Google da Yahoo! inda masu shigar da kara suka bukaci a cire wasu sakamakon bincike, kuma suna buƙatar cire hanyoyin haɗi zuwa hotuna.[6] Ɗaya daga cikin shari'ar, wanda mai zane Virginia da Cunha ya kawo, ya haɗa da hotunan da aka ɗauka da izinin ta kuma aka ɗora su da izininta, duk da haka ta yi zargin cewa sakamakon binciken bai dace da hotunan ta da batsa ba.[7] Shari'ar De Cunha ta sami nasarar farko wanda ya haifar da injunan bincike na Argentina ba su nuna hotuna na wani shahararren ba, duk da haka, wannan shawarar tana kan roko.[8]

Virginia Simari, alƙalin da ke goyon bayan De Cunha, ya bayyana cewa mutane suna da 'yancin sarrafa hotonsu da kuma hana wasu daga "kamawa, sakewa, watsawa, ko buga hoton mutum ba tare da izini ba".[9] Bugu da kari, Simari ya yi amfani da wata takarda da Julio César Rivera, lauya, marubuci, kuma farfesa a fannin shari'a ya rubuta "yancin sarrafa bayanan mutum ya haɗa da haƙƙin hana wasu yin amfani da hoton mutum. " [9] Tun daga shekarun 1990s, Argentina ta kasance wani ɓangare na motsi na bayanan habeas wanda "ya ɗauki tanadin kundin Tsaro mulki wanda shine wani ɓangare na 'yancin gwamnati-bayani da kuma wani ɓangare na dokar sirri. " [9] An san sigar su da Amparo. Mataki na 43 [9] ya bayyana shi:

"Kowane mutum zai shigar da wannan aikin don samun bayanai game da kansa da manufar su, rajista a cikin bayanan jama'a ko bayanan bayanai, ko kuma a cikin masu zaman kansu da aka nufa don samar da bayanai; kuma idan akwai bayanan ƙarya ko nuna bambanci, ana iya shigar da wannan mataki don neman murkushewa, gyarawa, sirri ko sabunta bayanan da aka ambata. "[9]

Argentina's efforts to protect their people's right to be forgotten has been called "the most complete"Samfuri:By whom because individuals are able to correct, delete, or update information about themselves. Overall, their information is bound to remain confidential.

China

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A cikin 2016, wata kotun kasar Sin a Beijing ta ki amincewa da wata hujja game da haƙƙin manta da shi lokacin da alƙali ya yanke hukunci a madadin Baidu a cikin karar da aka shigar game da cire sakamakon bincike.:: 140  Ita ce ta farko daga cikin irin waɗannan shari'o'in da za a ji a kotun kasar Sin.[10] A cikin karar, Ren Jiayu ya kai karar injin binciken kasar Sin Baidu kan sakamakon binciken da ya danganta shi da ma'aikacin da ya gabata, Wuxi Taoshi Biotechnology . [11]:: 140  Ren ya yi jayayya cewa ta hanyar sanya sakamakon bincike, Baidu ya keta haƙƙin sunansa da haƙƙin suna, dukansu an kare su a ƙarƙashin dokar kasar Sin.[10] Saboda wadannan kariya, Ren ya yi imanin cewa yana da damar mantawa da shi ta hanyar cire waɗannan sakamakon bincike.[10] Kotun ta yanke hukunci a kan Ren, tana mai da'awar sunansa tarin haruffa ne na yau da kullun kuma a sakamakon haka sakamakon binciken ya samo asali ne daga kalmomin da suka dace.[10] Kotun ta bayyana sakamakon bincike a matsayin binciken tsaka-tsaki wanda ya dogara da algorithm kuma ya bayyana cewa riƙe irin wannan bayanin ya zama dole ga jama'a.[11] : 140 : 140 

Tarayyar Turai

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Dokokin kariya na bayanai na Turai ba su aiwatar da "dama da za a manta da shi" ba, amma iyakantaccen "dama ga sharewa [bayanai]". Bambance-bambance game da ra'ayin haƙƙin da za a manta da shi sun wanzu a Turai shekaru da yawa, gami da:

  • A cikin Ƙasar Ingila akwai ra'ayin, wanda aka magance misali ta hanyar Dokar Rehabilitation of Offenders Act na 1974, cewa bayan wani lokaci ana "yi amfani da laifuka da yawa", ma'ana cewa bai kamata a yi la'akari da bayanai game da mutumin da aka ambata ba yayin samun inshora ko neman aiki.
  • A Faransa le droit à l'oubli (dama da za a manta da shi) [12] an kafa shi a cikin Dokar Faransa a cikin 2010.

Ra'ayoyi game da haƙƙin manta da su sun bambanta sosai tsakanin Amurka da ƙasashen EU. A Amurka, samun dama, haƙƙin 'yancin magana bisa ga Kwaskwarimar Farko, da kuma "yancin sani" galibi ana son su fiye da cirewa ko ƙara wahalar samun damar bayanan da aka buga da gaskiya game da mutane da kamfanoni. Kodayake kalmar "yancin da za a manta da shi" sabon ra'ayi ne, Kotun Shari'a ta Turai ta tabbatar da cewa "yancin a manta da su" haƙƙin ɗan adam ne lokacin da suka yi hukunci a kan Google a cikin shari'ar Costeja a ranar 13 ga Mayu, 2014. [13]

Wannan yana tayar da tambayoyi game da iyakokin aikace-aikace a cikin iko sun haɗa da rashin iya buƙatar cire bayanan da kamfanoni a waje da iko ke da su. Babu wani tsari na duniya don ba da damar mutane su mallaki hoton su na kan layi. Koyaya, Farfesa Viktor Mayer-Schönberger ya yi jayayya cewa Google ba zai iya tserewa daga bin dokar Faransa ba ta aiwatar da shawarar Kotun Turai a cikin 2014, yana nuna cewa Amurka da sauran ƙasashe sun daɗe suna riƙe da cewa dokokin yankin suna da "sakamakon waje".

A cikin 1995, Tarayyar Turai ta karɓi Dokar Kare Bayanai ta Turai (Directive 95/46/EC) don tsara sarrafa sarrafa bayanan mutum.[14] Wannan yanzu an dauke shi wani bangare na dokar kare hakkin dan adam.[15] Sabuwar Dokar Kare Bayanai ta Turai tana ba da kariya da keɓancewa ga kamfanonin da aka jera a matsayin kamfanonin "kafofin watsa labarai", kamar jaridu da sauran ayyukan jarida. Koyaya, Google da gangan ya zaɓi daga rarraba shi a matsayin kamfanin "kafofin watsa labarai", saboda haka ba a kare kamfanin ba. Alƙalai a cikin Tarayyar Turai sun yanke hukuncin cewa saboda kamfanin duniya, Google, mai tarawa ne kuma mai sarrafa bayanai ya kamata a rarraba shi a matsayin "mai kula da bayanai" a ƙarƙashin ma'anar umarnin kariya ta bayanai na EU. Wadannan "masu kula da bayanai" ana buƙatar su a ƙarƙashin dokar EU don cire bayanan da "ba su dace ba, ba su da mahimmanci, ko kuma ba su da dacewa", suna mai da wannan umarni na muhimmancin duniya.[12]

A cikin Mataki na 12 na Umurnin 95/46/EC EU ta ba da tushe na doka ga kariya ta Intanet ga mutane.[2]::233 A cikin 2012 Hukumar Tarayyar Turai ta bayyana daftarin Dokar Kare Bayanai ta Turai don maye gurbin umarnin, wanda ya haɗa da takamaiman kariya a cikin haƙƙin da za a manta da shi a cikin Mataki na 17.[16] An maye gurbin haƙƙin da za a manta da shi da iyakantaccen haƙƙin sharewa a cikin Mataki na 17 na sigar GDPR wanda Majalisar Tarayyar Turai ta karɓa a watan Maris na 2014 kuma wanda ya zama dokar Tarayyar Tarayyar a watan Afrilu na 2016.

Don yin amfani da haƙƙin mantawa da neman cirewa daga injin bincike, dole ne mutum ya kammala fom ta hanyar gidan yanar gizon injin bincike. Tsarin neman cirewa na Google yana buƙatar mai nema ya gano ƙasar da suke zaune, bayanan sirri, jerin URL ɗin da za a cire tare da ɗan gajeren bayani, kuma - a wasu lokuta - haɗe da ganewar doka.[17] Mai nema yana karɓar imel daga Google yana tabbatar da buƙatar amma dole ne a tantance buƙatar kafin a amince da ita don cirewa. Idan an amince da buƙatar, bincike ta amfani da sunan mutum ba zai sake haifar da abubuwan da ke bayyana a cikin sakamakon bincike ba. Abubuwan da ke ciki sun kasance a kan layi kuma ba a goge su ba.[18] Bayan an cika buƙata, ƙungiyar cire su ta sake duba buƙatar, suna la'akari da "yancin mutum na sirri game da haƙƙin jama'a na sani", suna yanke shawara idan shafin yanar gizon "ba shi da isasshen, ba shi da mahimmanci ko kuma ba shi da dacewa, ko kuma ya wuce gona da iri dangane da dalilan da aka sarrafa su".[19] Google ta kafa Majalisar Ba da Shawara ta furofesoshi daban-daban, lauyoyi, da jami'an gwamnati daga ko'ina cikin Turai don samar da jagororin ga waɗannan yanke shawara. Koyaya, tsarin sake dubawa har yanzu asiri ne ga jama'a gaba ɗaya. Ba a saki jagororin da masu kula da EU suka kafa ba har zuwa Nuwamba 2014, amma Google ya fara daukar mataki a kan wannan da wuri fiye da haka, wanda (bisa ga wani marubuci) ya ba su damar "sanya fassarar zuwa ga iyakokinsu".[20] A watan Mayu na shekara ta 2015, malamai tamanin sun yi kira ga karin gaskiya daga Google a cikin wasika.[21]

Fom ɗin ya nemi mutane su zaɓi ɗaya daga cikin ƙasashe 28 da suka kafa Tarayyar Turai, da Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, da Switzerland.[22] "Fam ɗin yana bawa mutum ko wani wanda ke wakiltar mutum damar sanya buƙata" don cire duk wani URL ɗin da aka yi imanin ya zama keta sirrin mutum. Ba tare da la'akari da wanda ke gabatar da fom ɗin ba, wasu nau'ikan ganewar hoto na mutumin da ake gabatar da fom din dole ne su kasance. Wannan yana nufin zama hujja cewa mutumin da aka yi masa buƙata ya yarda da shi.

Idan Google ya ki amincewa da bukatar cire kayan, Turawa na iya yin kira ga hukumar kare bayanai ta gida.[23] Ya zuwa Mayu 2015, Hukumar Kare Bayanai ta Burtaniya ta magance irin waɗannan korafe-korafe 184 kuma ta soke shawarar Google a cikin kusan kashi ɗaya cikin huɗu na waɗannan.[24] Idan Google ya kasa bin shawarar Hukumar Kare Bayanai, zai iya fuskantar matakin shari'a.

A watan Yulin 2014, a farkon matakan kokarin Google na bin hukuncin kotun, masana shari'a sun yi tambaya ko fitar da Google da aka yada a ko'ina na wasu labaran labarai sun keta Dokokin Kare Bayanai na Burtaniya da EU, tunda a aiwatar da Dokokin, ana buƙatar Google don auna lalacewar ga mutumin da ke yin buƙata game da duk wani sha'awar jama'a a cikin bayanan da ke akwai. Google da gaske ya yarda cewa wasu daga cikin sakamakon binciken da aka cire, wanda ya shafi labaran da ke da sha'awar jama'a, ba daidai ba ne, kuma ya dawo da hanyoyin haɗin mako guda bayan haka.[25] Masu sharhi kamar Charles Arthur, editan fasaha na The Guardian, da Andrew Orlowski na The Register sun lura cewa ba a buƙatar Google ya bi buƙatun cirewa kwata-kwata, saboda yana iya tura buƙatun ga kwamishinan bayanai a cikin ƙasar da ta dace don yanke shawara da ke la'akari da fa'idodin sha'awar jama'a da haƙƙin mutum.[26][27]

Google yana sanar da shafukan yanar gizo waɗanda ke da URLs da aka cire, kuma kungiyoyin labarai daban-daban, kamar BBC, sun buga jerin abubuwan da aka cire. An ambaci sunayen masu korafe-korafe a cikin sharhin labarai game da waɗannan abubuwan. A watan Agustan 2015 Hukumar Kare Bayanai ta Burtaniya ta ba da umarnin tilasta wa Google ya cire wasu daga cikin waɗannan labaran kwanan nan daga binciken sunan mai shigar da kara, bayan Google ya ki yin hakan.[28] Google ya bi bukatar.[29] Wasu masana kimiyya sun soki kungiyoyin labarai da Google saboda halayensu.[30][31]

A watan Yulin 2015, Google ba zato ba tsammani ya bayyana bayanai game da delinkings cewa "ya nuna 95% na buƙatun sirri na Google daga 'yan ƙasa ne don kare bayanan sirri da masu zaman kansu - ba masu laifi ba, 'yan siyasa da jama'a. "[32]

Wannan ɓarkewar bayanai ya haifar da mummunar sakamako ga Google yayin da jama'a suka nuna fushin su da tsoro game da bayanin da aka bayyana kwanan nan. Kodayake masu aikata laifuka, 'yan siyasa, da kuma jama'a ne kawai suka yi 5% na buƙatun, abubuwan da aka cire sune suka haifar da tsoro mafi yawa. Musamman, buƙatar ɗaya don cire bayanai ta fito ne daga likitan Burtaniya wanda ke neman a cire hanyoyin haɗi 50 akan hanyoyin kiwon lafiya da suka gabata. Google ya amince da cire sakamakon bincike guda uku dauke da bayanan kansa.[33] Jama'a sun nuna fushin su suna cewa za'a iya amfani da cire irin wannan bayanin don magudi kuma zai iya haifar da mutane marasa laifi da ke yanke shawara mara kyau. Google ya amsa fushin jama'a ta hanyar cewa lokacin da suke cire abun ciki suna la'akari da haƙƙin mutum da na jama'a.[33]

Tarayyar Turai tana ba da shawara ga bayanan da 'yan EU suka nema da Google ya aiwatar da su ba kawai a cikin sassan Turai na Google ba (kamar yadda yake a google.co.uk, google.fr, da dai sauransu), amma a google.com da sauran sassan duniya. Masu tsarawa suna son a aiwatar da ƙididdigar don kada a kauce wa doka ta kowace hanya. Google ya ki amincewa da bukatar Hukumar Kare Bayanai ta Faransa ta yi amfani da haƙƙin a duniya.[34] Saboda wani bangare na kin bin shawarar kwamitin kula da sirri Google ya zama batun binciken shekaru hudu na Hukumar Tarayyar Turai.[35] A watan Satumbar 2015, Hukumar Kare Bayanai ta Faransa ta yi watsi da roko na Google.[36]

Hukumar Kare Bayanai ta Faransa ta yi kira ga kotunan EU da su nemi mataki a kan Google saboda rashin cirewa a cikin sabobin duniya. A watan Satumbar 2019 Kotun Shari'a ta Tarayyar Turai ta ba da shawarar ta, ta gano cewa ba a buƙatar Google ya cire kan shafukan yanar gizo na waje ga Tarayyar Tarayyar, yana kammala cewa "A halin yanzu, babu wani wajibi a ƙarƙashin dokar Tarayyar EU, don mai ba da sabis na injiniyar bincike wanda ke ba da buƙatar cirewa da wani batun bayanai ya yi ... don aiwatar da irin wannan cirewa akan duk nau'ikan injin binciken sa. "[37][38]

Ya zuwa watan Satumbar 2015, shafin da aka fi sani da shi shine www.facebook.com . Uku daga cikin shafukan yanar gizo na Google, groups.google.com, plus.google,com da www.youtube.com suna daga cikin shafuka goma da aka fi sani.[29] Baya ga Google, Yahoo da Bing sun kuma samar da siffofi don yin buƙatun delinking.

A watan Satumbar 2019, Kotun Turai ta yanke hukuncin cewa Hakkin Mantuwa bai shafi waje da kasashe membobinta ba.[39] Hukuncin ya nuna cewa Google ba dole ba ne ya share sunayen mutane daga dukkan sassan kasa da kasa.

A watan Disamba na shekara ta 2022, alƙalai a Luxembourg sun kara fadada haƙƙin da za a manta da shi a cikin shari'ar C-460/20 TU, RE vs Google LLC. Wannan shari'ar ta danganta da manajoji biyu na ƙungiyar kamfanonin saka hannun jari, waɗanda suka yi jayayya cewa ya kamata a 'de-referenced' labarai guda uku marasa kyau daga sakamakon injin bincike na Google, yayin neman sunayensu. Sun yi iƙirarin cewa bayanin da aka gabatar a cikin labaran ba daidai ba ne, wanda ya haifar da tambaya ko masu aikin injiniyar bincike suna buƙatar bincika daidaito na bayanin. Bugu da ƙari, masu neman sun buƙaci cewa hotunan da ke nuna su a kan hotuna na samfoti - ko ƙananan yatsunsu - yayin gudanar da bincike, ya kamata a cire su. A cikin wannan hukunci Kotun Turai ta amince da bukatar masu nema. Ana buƙatar masu aiki da injin bincike kamar Google don cire bayanan da suka dace, idan mutumin da ke neman cirewa ya gabatar da shaidar 'da ta dace da isasshen' wanda zai iya tabbatar da bukatarsa, kuma ta haka ne ya nuna rashin daidaito na bayanin da aka samu (sashi. 72). Ga ƙananan ƙwayoyin dole ne a yi kimantawa mai zaman kanta, amma ainihin wannan tunani ya shafi.[40]

Har ila yau, ikon Turai na bayanai ya wuce iyakokinta zuwa ƙasashe waɗanda ba su da "cikakken" kariya. Misali, canja wurin bayanai na Turai zuwa ƙasashe masu rauni yana da iyaka, wanda ya haifar da kamfanoni kamar Google da Amazon don kafa cibiyoyin bayanai na Turai don keɓewa daga Turai.[41]

Caselaw a Spain

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A watan Mayu na shekara ta 2014, Kotun Turai ta yanke hukunci a kan Google a Costeja, wani shari'ar da wani Mutanen Espanya, Mario Costeja González, ya kawo, wanda ya nemi a cire hanyar haɗi zuwa wani labarin da aka Tsaro a cikin jaridar La Vanguardia game da siyarwa ga gidansa da aka rufe, don bashin da ya biya daga baya.[42] Da farko ya yi ƙoƙari ya cire labarin ta hanyar gunaguni ga Hukumar kare bayanai ta Spain, wanda ya ki amincewa da da'awar a kan dalilin cewa doka ce kuma daidai, amma ya yarda da korafi game da Google kuma ya nemi Google ya cire sakamakon.[43] Google ta kai karar a cikin Audiencia Nacional (Babban Kotun Kasa) na Spain wanda ya tura jerin tambayoyi ga Kotun Turai. Kotun ta yanke hukunci a Costeja cewa injunan bincike suna da alhakin abubuwan da suke nunawa kuma ta haka ne, ana buƙatar Google ta bi dokokin sirrin bayanai na EU. [44][45] A ranar farko ta bin sa kawai (Mayu 30, 2014), Google ta karɓi buƙatun 12,000 don cire cikakkun bayanai na sirri daga injin binciken sa.

Caselaw a Jamus

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A ranar 27 ga Oktoba, 2009, lauyoyin Wolfgang Werlé wanda - tare da Manfred Lauber - aka yanke masa hukunci da kisan kai Walter SedlmayrWalter Sedlmayr class="cx-link" data-linkid="153" href="./Wikimedia_Foundation" id="mwAQI" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Wikimedia Foundation">Gidauniyar Wikimedia da wasika ta dakatar da neman a cire sunan Werlé daga labarin Wikipedia na Turanci Walter Sedl Mayr, suna ambaton hukuncin Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta Tarayya na 1973 wanda ke ba da damar murkushe sunan mai laifi a cikin asusun labarai da zarar an sake shi daga tsare. A baya, Alexander H. Stopp, lauyan Werlé da Lauber, ya lashe hukunci a kotun Jamus, a madadin Lauber, a kan Gidauniyar Wikimedia. [46] A cewar Gidauniyar Electronic Frontier, lauyoyin Werlé sun kuma kalubalanci mai ba da sabis na Intanet a Austria wanda ya buga sunayen masu kisan da aka yanke musu hukunci.

Wikimedia ta kasance a Amurka, inda Kwaskwarimar Farko ke kare 'yancin magana da' yancin manema labarai. A Jamus, doka tana neman kare sunan da kamannin mutane masu zaman kansu daga tallace-tallace da ba a so. A ranar 18 ga watan Janairun shekara ta 2008, wata kotun da ke Hamburg ta goyi bayan haƙƙin mutum na Werlé, wanda ta hanyar dokar Jamus ya haɗa da cire sunansa daga tarihin shari'ar.

A ranar 12 ga Nuwamba, 2009, The New York Times ta ruwaito cewa Wolfgang Werlé yana da shari'ar da ke jiran Gidauniyar Wikimedia a kotun Jamus. Editocin labarin Wikipedia na Jamusanci game da Sedlmayr sun cire sunayen masu kisan, wanda tun daga wannan lokacin aka mayar da shi ga labarin. The Guardian ta lura cewa karar ta haifar da Tasirin Streisand, haɓakar tallace-tallace don shari'ar da ta haifar da matakin shari'a.

A ranar 15 ga watan Disamba, 2009, Kotun Shari'a ta Tarayya Jamus (Bundesgerichtshof) a Karlsruhe ta yanke hukuncin cewa shafukan yanar gizo na Jamus ba dole ba ne su bincika tarihin su don samar da kariya ta dindindin na haƙƙin mutum ga masu laifi da aka yanke musu hukunci. Wannan shari'ar ta faru ne bayan an sami sunayen 'yan uwan a shafin yanar gizon Deutschlandradio, a cikin wani labarin tarihi wanda ya fara ne daga watan Yulin 2000. Alkalin da ke jagorantar taron Gregor Galke ya bayyana cewa "Wannan ba takardar shaidar ba ce", kuma ya bayyana cewa an yi la'akari da haƙƙin farfado da masu laifi.

A ranar 28 ga Nuwamba, 2019, kotun kundin tsarin mulki ta Jamus a Karlsruhe ta yanke hukuncin cewa mai kisan kai na Jamus Paul Termann yana da damar mantawa da shi.[47]

Dokar Kare Bayanai ta Gaba ɗaya

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Shirin Dokar Kare Bayanai ta Turai ta 2012 Mataki na 17 ya ba da cikakken bayani game da "dama da za a manta da shi kuma a share shi". Ta hanyar Mataki na 17 mutane waɗanda aka ba da bayanan da suka dace da su damar "samun daga mai kula da share bayanan sirri da suka shafi su da kuma gujewa daga ci gaba da watsa irin waɗannan bayanan, musamman dangane da bayanan sirri waɗanda batun bayanan ya ba su samuwa yayin da yake yaro ko kuma inda bayanan ba su da mahimmanci don manufar da aka tattara shi, batun ya janye izini, lokacin ajiya ya ƙare, bayanan da ke ƙarƙashin sarrafawa ba ya cika da sauran ka'idoji. " [48]

Tarayyar Turai ta bayyana "masu kula da bayanai" a matsayin "mutane ko ƙungiyoyi waɗanda ke tattara da sarrafa bayanan sirri".[49] Dokar Tsaro ta Bayanai ta Tarayyar Turai tana buƙatar masu kula da bayanai waɗanda aka sanar da su cewa mutum ya nemi a share duk wani haɗin kai ko kwafin bayanai dole ne "yi duk matakan da suka dace, gami da matakan fasaha, dangane da bayanan da mai kula ke da alhakin, don sanar da wasu waɗanda ke sarrafa irin wannan bayanan, cewa batun bayanai yana buƙatar su share duk wani hanyar haɗi zuwa, ko kwafin ko sake maimaita wannan bayanan sirri. Inda mai kula ya ba da izinin buga bayanan sirri na ɓangare na uku, mai kula zai ɗauki alhakin wannan littafin. A cikin halin da ake ciki cewa mai kula da bayanai ba ya ɗaukar duk matakan da suka dace to za a ci su tarar sosai.[50]

An yi tsammanin Majalisar Tarayyar Turai ta amince da shawarwarin a karatun farko a zaman Plenary na Afrilu 2013".[51] Hakkin da za a manta da shi an maye gurbinsa da iyakantaccen haƙƙin sharewa a cikin sigar GDPR da Majalisar Tarayyar Turai ta karɓa a watan Maris na shekara ta 2014.[52][53] Mataki na 17 ya ba da cewa batun bayanai yana da damar neman share bayanan sirri da ke da alaƙa da shi a kan kowane dalili ciki har da rashin bin doka da Mataki na 6.1 (doka) wanda ya haɗa da shari'a (f) inda bukatun halal na mai kula ya mamaye abubuwan da ke cikin sha'awa ko haƙƙoƙi na asali da 'yanci na batun wanda ke buƙatar kariya ga bayanan sirri (duba kuma Costeja). [54]

manazarta

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]
  1. ↑ Vaas, Lisa (25 September 2019). "Google wins landmark case: Right to be forgotten only applies in EU". Naked Security. Archived from the original on 2021-01-23. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mantelero, Alessandro (2013). "The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the 'right to be forgotten'". Computer Law & Security Review. 29 (3): 229–235. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2013.03.010.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Weber, Rolf H. (2011). "The right to be forgotten: more than a Pandora's Box?". Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law. 2: 120–130. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-07-12.
  4. ↑ Mayes, Tessa (2014-05-21). "We have no right to be forgotten online". The Guardian. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  5. ↑ Crovitz, L. Gordon (2010-11-15). "Crovitz: Forget any 'Right to Be Forgotten'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  6. ↑ "La Justicia Argentina Sobreseyó a Adriana Noreña, Directora General de Google". Infotechnology.com. 2012-09-21. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  7. ↑ Carter, Edward L. "Argentina's Right to Be Forgotten." Emory International Law Review. 27 (2013): pg 23.
  8. ↑ "Search engines not responsible for content". Buenos Aires Herald. 2013-09-05. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Carter, Edward (January 2013). "Argentina's Right to be Forgotten". Emory International Law Review. 27 (1): 23.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Sixth Tone (2016-05-05). "Chinese Have No Right to Be Forgotten, Court Rules". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-05-23.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :Zhang
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Arthur, Charles (14 May 2014). "Explaining the 'right to be forgotten' – the newest cultural shibboleth". The Guardian.
  13. ↑ Lynskey, Orla (May 2015). "Control over Personal Data in a Digital Age: Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez" (PDF). Modern Law Review. 78 (3): 522–534. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12126. S2CID 143317787.
  14. ↑ Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. EU Directive 1995.
  15. ↑ Mitrou, Lilian; Karyda, Maria (2012). "EU's Data Protection Reform and the right to be forgotten—A legal response to a technological challenge?". 5th International Conference of Information Law and Ethics: 29–30. SSRN 2165245.
  16. ↑ 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). 2012/0011 (COD). Article 17. Right to be forgotten and To Erasure
  17. ↑ "EU Privacy Removal". www.google.com.
  18. ↑ "How Google's New "Right To Be Forgotten" Form Works: An Explainer". Search Engine Land. 30 May 2014.
  19. ↑ Brindle, Beth (4 March 2015). "How can Google forget you?". How Stuff Works. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
  20. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Powles and Chaparro
  21. ↑ Kiss, Jemima (14 May 2015). "Dear Google: open letter from 80 academics on 'right to be forgotten'". The Guardian.
  22. ↑ "Search Removal Request Under Data Protection Law in Europe". Google. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
  23. ↑ Arthur, Charles (27 June 2014). "Google removing 'right to be forgotten' search links in Europe". The Guardian.
  24. ↑ Martin, Alexander J. "'Right to be forgotten' festers as ICO and Google come to blows". The Register.
  25. ↑ Drummond, David (10 July 2014). "We need to talk about the right to be forgotten". The Guardian.
  26. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Arthur
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named whydoit
  28. ↑ Gibbs, Samuel (20 August 2015). "Google ordered to remove links to 'right to be forgotten' removal stories". The Guardian.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 "Transparency Report. European privacy requests for search removals". Google. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  30. ↑ Powles, Julia (July 2015). "Why the BBC is wrong to republish 'right to be forgotten' links". The Guardian.
  31. ↑ Boiten, Eerke (24 August 2015). "Privacy watchdog takes first step against those undermining right to be forgotten". The Conversation.
  32. ↑ Tippmann, Sylvia; Powles, Julia (14 July 2015). "Google accidentally reveals data on 'right to be forgotten' requests". The Guardian.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :2
  34. ↑ Hern, Alex (30 July 2015). "Google says non to French demand to expand right to be forgotten worldwide". The Guardian.
  35. ↑ "EU wants 'right to be forgotten' applied globally". CNET. CBS Interactive.
  36. ↑ Gibbs, Samuel (21 September 2015). "French data regulator rejects Google's right-to-be-forgotten appeal". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  37. ↑ Chee, Foo Yun (24 September 2019). "Google wins landmark case limiting 'right to be forgotten' to Europe". Reuters. Retrieved 24 September 2019.
  38. ↑ "Press Release No112/19" (PDF). Court of Justice of the European Union. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 2019-09-25.
  39. ↑ Corfield, Gareth. "EU court rules Right To Be Forgotten doesn't apply outside member states". www.theregister.com (in Turanci). Retrieved 2020-11-10.
  40. ↑ Gstrein, Oskar Josef (2022). "The Right to be Forgotten in 2022-Luxembourg judges keep surfing the legislative void". Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional (in Turanci). doi:10.17176/20221220-121718-0. Retrieved 2023-01-14.
  41. ↑ Newman, Abraham (Jan 2015). "What the "right to be forgotten" means for privacy in a digital age". Science. 347 (6221): 507–508. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4603. PMID 25635090.
  42. ↑ Powles, Julia (15 May 2014). "What we can salvage from 'right to be forgotten' ruling". Wired.co.uk. Archived from the original on 16 May 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
  43. ↑ Solon, Olivia (13 May 2014). "People have the right to be forgotten, rules EU court". Wired.co.uk. Conde Nast Digital. Archived from the original on 14 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
  44. ↑ "EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case". BBC News. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
  45. ↑ "EU court rules Google must tweak search results in test of 'right to be forgotten'". CBS News. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
  46. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nyt
  47. ↑ "Bundesverfassungsgericht - Entscheidungen - Auch bei gleichzeitiger Geltung der Unionsgrundrechte prüft das Bundesverfassungsgericht primär die deutschen Grundrechte *** Online-Pressearchive können zu Schutzvorkehrungen gegen die zeitlich unbegrenzte Verbreitung personenbezogener Berichte durch Suchmaschinen verpflichtet sein". 6 November 2019.
  48. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named europa1
  49. ↑ "Who can collect and process personal data? - Justice". Ec.europa.eu. 2014-06-26. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  50. ↑ "European Parliament gives overwhelming backing to new EU data protection laws". Out-law.com. March 12, 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  51. ↑ "EUROPA - Press Releases - Press release - Data Protection Day 2014: Full Speed on EU Data Protection Reform". Europa.eu. January 27, 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
  52. ↑ Baldry, Tony; Hyams, Oliver (15 May 2014). "The Right to Be Forgotten". 1 Essex Court.
  53. ↑ "European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 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)". European Parliament.
  54. ↑ "Factsheet on the 'Right to be Forgotten' ruling (case C-131/12)" (PDF). European Commission.
Daga "https://ha.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakkin_a_manta_da_shi&oldid=546153"