Is a Relative Definition of the Notion of Erasure the Much Sought-After Solution to the Dilemma Between Robust Integrity and Total Eradication?

Yves Bauer, Nathalie Tissot, Bertil Cottier, H. Mercier
{"title":"Is a Relative Definition of the Notion of Erasure the Much Sought-After Solution to the Dilemma Between Robust Integrity and Total Eradication?","authors":"Yves Bauer, Nathalie Tissot, Bertil Cottier, H. Mercier","doi":"10.54648/gplr2021004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article highlights the tension that lies between the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR’s) security and minimization principles. The implementation of state-of-the-art technologies, such as entanglement or blockchains, offers promising opportunities for data controllers to guarantee the security of the data they process, particularly in relation to availability and accuracy. On the other hand, such technologies may enter into conflict with other obligations, especially regarding the erasure of data (at the end of data life or requested by the data subject). We argue that the interpretation of the notion of erasure shall not be limited to the physical destruction of the data, but shall also extend, when technical measures implemented for the purpose of guaranteeing security do not allow for the physical destruction of the data, to ‘relative erasures’, or processing activities that have for effect to put the data beyond use in a way that makes it impossible, for the controller or third parties, to process it again without disproportionate efforts. Such interpretation would allow data controllers who implement strong security measures to comply with the GDPR. Combined with a careful design of privacy, it may further guarantee the data subject’s rights without requiring detrimental security concessions.\nGDPR, erasure, minimization principle, right to erasure, data life cycle, anti-tampering technologies, blockchain technologies, data availability, data integrity, data deletion, data erasure","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Privacy Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2021004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article highlights the tension that lies between the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR’s) security and minimization principles. The implementation of state-of-the-art technologies, such as entanglement or blockchains, offers promising opportunities for data controllers to guarantee the security of the data they process, particularly in relation to availability and accuracy. On the other hand, such technologies may enter into conflict with other obligations, especially regarding the erasure of data (at the end of data life or requested by the data subject). We argue that the interpretation of the notion of erasure shall not be limited to the physical destruction of the data, but shall also extend, when technical measures implemented for the purpose of guaranteeing security do not allow for the physical destruction of the data, to ‘relative erasures’, or processing activities that have for effect to put the data beyond use in a way that makes it impossible, for the controller or third parties, to process it again without disproportionate efforts. Such interpretation would allow data controllers who implement strong security measures to comply with the GDPR. Combined with a careful design of privacy, it may further guarantee the data subject’s rights without requiring detrimental security concessions. GDPR, erasure, minimization principle, right to erasure, data life cycle, anti-tampering technologies, blockchain technologies, data availability, data integrity, data deletion, data erasure
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
擦除概念的相对定义是解决健壮完整性和完全根除之间困境的迫切需要的解决方案吗?
本文强调了通用数据保护条例(GDPR)的安全性和最小化原则之间的紧张关系。实施最先进的技术,如纠缠或区块链,为数据控制器提供了有希望的机会,以保证他们处理的数据的安全性,特别是在可用性和准确性方面。另一方面,这类技术可能与其他义务发生冲突,特别是在数据删除方面(在数据寿命结束时或数据主体提出要求时)。我们认为擦除的概念的解释不应局限于物理破坏的数据,但还应当扩大,当技术措施实现为目的的保证安全不允许的物理破坏数据,相对“抹除”的,或处理活动效果把数据以外的使用,使它不可能,控制器或第三方,处理一遍没有不相称的努力。这样的解释将允许实施强有力的安全措施的数据控制者遵守GDPR。结合隐私的精心设计,它可以进一步保障数据主体的权利,而不需要有害的安全让步。GDPR、擦除、最小化原则、擦除权、数据生命周期、防篡改技术、区块链技术、数据可用性、数据完整性、数据删除、数据擦除
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Key Privacy Concepts in the EU and Canada The Personal Data Under the GDPR: Concept, Elements, and Boundaries News: APAC Privacy News Collection of Personal Information in Canadian Law Case Note: Strengthening the Role of Google? Recent Developments in the Right to Be Forgotten Case Law of the CJEU (TU and RE v. Google LLC, C-460/20)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1