| dc.contributor | 政大法學評論 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 劉定基 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | Liu, Ting-Chi | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2023-09 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 5-十二月-2023 09:22:11 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 5-十二月-2023 09:22:11 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 5-十二月-2023 09:22:11 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148578 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 2014年5月歐盟法院作成舉世聞名的Google Spain SL v. AEPD判決，承認所謂的「被遺忘權」。該判決不僅對歐盟成員國實務產生重大影響，更在短短不到十年的時間，擴散到墨西哥、哥倫比亞、俄羅斯、印度、日本、臺灣都有相關立法或法院判決，肯認某種形式的被遺忘權存在。
被遺忘權的承認與實踐，從憲法的角度觀察，涉及了相當複雜的法律關係，包括資料主體、國家、搜尋引擎、內容提供者、網路使用者。有鑑於國內對於被遺忘權已經累積相當豐富的討論，本文即直接切入以下四項仍有爭議。首先，最為根本的問題是，被遺忘權的憲法基礎為何？究竟是人格權或是資訊隱私權？其次，被遺忘權適用的對象是否應該兼及「原始內容提供者」？第三，當被遺忘權適用於搜尋引擎或其他網路平臺時，業者所得主張的基本權利為何？究竟是單純的營業自由或是言論自由？第四，當搜尋引擎或其他網路平臺決定是否移除個別列表結果或內容時，是否有義務遵循一定的程序，以確保原始內容提供者或一般網路使用者的權利？希望藉由本文的討論，提供將來國內法院或立法者在面臨被遺忘權問題時參考。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | In May 2014, The European Court of Justice rendered a world-renowned judgment, Google Spain SL v. AEPD, recognizing the so-called“right to be forgotten.”Such judgment not only significantly impacts EU member states, but also influences the legislation and/or judicial decisions of Mexico, Columbia, Russia, India, Japan, and Taiwan. All these countries now recognize a similar right.
From the constitutional law perspective, recognizing and implementing the right to the forgotten has involved rather complicated legal relationships among data subjects, states, search engines, content providers, and general internet users. Because abundant articles already discuss the right to be forgotten, this essay will address the following four unresolved and highly disputed issues. The first and most fundamental issue is what is the constitutional basis of the right to be forgotten? Is it the right to personality or the right to information privacy? Second, should the right be applied to original content providers, such as online news archives? Third, when this right applies to search engines or other online platforms, is it implicated in the companies’property right or freedom of speech? Fourth, when a search engine or online platform decides to remove specific search results or contents, is it required to follow specific processes to protect the rights of the content providers or internet users? By thoroughly analyzing these issues, this essay wishes to provide essential references to Taiwan’s legislature and judiciary when handling the right to be forgotten questions in the future. | |
| dc.format.extent | 2826054 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 政大法學評論, 174, 217-263 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 被遺忘權; 去列表權; 人格權; 資訊隱私; 言論自由; 正當平臺程序 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | The Right to Be Forgotten; The Right to De-Listing; Right to Personality; Information Privacy; Freedom of Speech; Platform Due Process | |
| dc.title (題名) | 資訊的保鮮期限？──論被遺忘權幾個待解的習題 | |
| dc.title (題名) | The Expiration Date of Information: Four Unresolved Issues of the Right to be Forgotten | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
| dc.identifier.doi (DOI) | 10.53106/102398202023090174004 | |
| dc.doi.uri (DOI) | https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023090174004 | |
